Deal Professor: Corporate Forces Endangered the Twinkie, but May Save It

Snack cake aficionados rejoice, the Twinkie will live.

Its demise nearly came at the hands of corporate America’s machinations. Its survival, however, depends on some of those same machinations. In the end, it was the extreme outcome of a liquidation in bankruptcy that made the 83-year-old brand salvageable.

The history of the cream-filled snack illustrates a number of the forces that have driven American capitalism over the last hundred years. Its first owner, Continental Baking Company, bought companies left and right in the 1920s, including the Taggart Baking Company, maker of Wonder bread, in 1925.

But the Twinkie was an in-house invention. It was created in 1930 by an executive working at Continental Baking who was looking for a product to sell after strawberry season ended, when the factory line for cream-filled strawberry shortcake sat empty. The yellowish, cream-filled Twinkie was a hit and the company quickly expanded.

Continental Baking continued its acquisition spree and by 1968 it was a motley assortment of baking brands that fed on America’s tastes for sweet and easy food. It was then acquired by Harold Geneen‘s ITT, a conglomerate that sold not only Twinkies but also munitions. There, the brand sat for 16 years until Continental Baking was sold in 1984 for $475 million to Ralston Purina.

By then the baking business had entered a slow growth phase as inflation in baked goods, which had allowed the company continually to raise prices, subsided. Ralston Purina was unable to produce growth in the brands and ended up selling the bakery for about $400 million in 1995 to Interstate Bakeries.

Interstate Bakeries became the largest bakery in the country, but the sentiment around the deal was aptly expressed by a food industry analyst, who said at the time that Ralston Purina’s sale “basically allows them to get rid of a dog.”

Interstate Bakeries was itself a mongrel of many brands put together by serial acquisitions. Unfortunately, Interstate turned out to be better at acquiring companies than managing them. The brands had been passed around often and in the traveling it appears management never could get a more coherent vision for the company other than acquiring yet more unhealthy brands and leaving them to languish.

Then, at the turn of the millennium, the company was hit by a double blow: a taste for health and less carbohydrates among consumers and a botched attempt to put an additive in its breads to give them longer shelf life. You can tell that something is wrong with a food company when its strategy to save itself is to make its food last weeks longer.

It was also not the time to lack vision. The company’s historically high labor and food costs could no longer be covered up by rising prices. Consumers demanded ever cheaper snack food prices.

The company entered bankruptcy in 2004. More than four years later, it emerged, now owned by Ripplewood, which put up $130 million to acquire it. It was then that the company rebranded itself as Hostess Brands.

Despite the company’s cost reductions, and its lowering the employee head count by about 10,000, that was still not enough. The company had more than $800 million in debt coming out of bankruptcy, which was actually over $150 million more than it started with. Not to mention that it had spent $170 million on advisers during bankruptcy.

Indeed, people close to Hostess also say that Ripplewood’s plan was yet another merger: to sell the company to the Sara Lee Corporation. But when Sara Lee sold its bakery operations to Grupo Bimbo, there was no Plan B.

The company filed for bankruptcy again in 2012. It lost $341 million in the previous fiscal year, according to Standard & Poor’s Capital IQ. And management, which had gone through six chief executives in a decade, had been unable to execute a turnaround plan.

When the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union drew a line in the sand in November and said it would rather risk liquidation, it was over.

It was a principled position that the brands would do better with a fresh start and new management. Hostess filed a plan to liquidate the company and fire almost all its 18,000 employees.

The news spread that the Twinkie had finally met its match, along with Wonder bread, the Devil Dog and all the other products. It was then that the mechanisms of corporate America were put in motion to revive Hostess.

Hostess’s investment banks went to work and lined up potential bidders. In fact, they didn’t have to do much, as the announcement of the company’s liquidation and the publicity that followed brought in more than 80 bidders in a few days. It also led to a quick run on Twinkies and other Hostess brands.

The interest came as a surprise to Hostess. Its executives — fearing that liquidation would destroy everything — had worked hard with the Teamsters union for a plan to save the company, only to be frustrated by the bakers union at the last minute. But liquidation has proved to be the Twinkie’s savior.

Instead of trying to work out a compromise by reorganizing in bankruptcy, the company used the bankruptcy process to escape all its past burdensome debts. Freed of 394 union contracts, more than $2 billion in pension liabilities and any need to retain factories, the value of the Twinkie was reduced solely to what people were willing to pay for the brand. News of the Twinkies demise was the best thing that ever could have happened to the company.

Two private equity firms, C. Dean Metropoulos & Company and Apollo Global Management, have agreed to pay $410 million to buy the Hostess business, including Twinkies. And Flowers Foods has agreed to buy Wonder and Hostess’s other bread businesses for $360 million. Even Drake’s will survive; McKee Foods has agreed to pay $27.5 million for the business.

These are so-called stalking horse bids. In bankruptcy there is an open auction of the liquidated business, which in this case is expected to occur in bankruptcy court in February and March, when others will bid.

All told, it appears that the sale of Hostess may reap over a billion dollars, almost twice what the creditors initially expected if it had not been liquidated. In other words, the liquidation of Hostess has made the company worth more.

There’s a lesson here. While corporate machinations and passing along brands can damage them, the clean bill of liquidation allowed corporate America to re-evaluate the Twinkie.

Sure, there will be future battles as Hostess’s old unions struggle to have their employees rehired and new management tries to restart the company. And nothing can heal the wounds of the employees who have lost savings and pensions as well as jobs.

But the brands will now come under better management and, we can hope, more capable owners who can turn to reviving these businesses. In other words, while extreme finance was the cause of Hostess’s demise, it may very well now be the Twinkie’s savior.

---

Read More..

GOP lawmakers want probe of Cal Fire over off-budget account

State Republican legislators want federal prosecutors to investigate the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for putting $3.6 million from legal settlements into an off-budget account.

"This subterfuge money has been spent on a wide array of questionable expenditures that has nothing to do with reimbursing the state for firefighting costs," the legislators wrote in a Friday letter to Gov. Jerry Brown, asking him to request an investigation by the U.S. attorney.

The letter follows a story in The Times that found that from 2005 to 2012, Cal Fire, as the department is commonly known, placed funds with the California District Attorneys Assn. to use for training and equipment. Cal Fire regulations say the money is supposed to be sent to the state general fund.

The legislators said the state attorney general had authorized sending the money to the California District Attorneys Assn. Brown served as attorney general from 2007 to 2011.

Lynda Gledhill, a spokeswoman for the current attorney general, denied that claim.

"The California Department of Justice did not endorse placement of settlement money into an account outside of the budget process," Gledhill said. "Atty. Gen. [Kamala] Harris has directed her office to examine the state's settlement practices to ensure all settlements are not only lawful, but fully transparent to the public."

The state Department of Finance has begun an audit of the fund, which is expected to take about two months, spokesman H.D. Palmer said.

In addition, a joint Assembly and state Senate committee announced last week that it will conduct a hearing to determine the extent California agencies are using off-budget accounts to hold money outside the state system.

The GOP letter was signed by 25 members of the Senate and Assembly. They also are using the issue to call for an end to a law the Legislature passed last year requiring rural homeowners who rely on state firefighters to pay $150 a year for fire prevention services.

"It is clear that the state has not been judicious in its use of taxpayer dollars," the lawmakers' letter said. "The state must stop these outrageous duplicitous tactics."

Senate Republican leader Robert Huff of Diamond Bar and Assembly GOP leader Connie Conway of Tulare sent a letter last week asking the attorney general to refer the matter to the U.S. attorney. A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney in Sacramento said no information about the fund had been brought to her office.

Janet Upton, a Cal Fire spokeswoman, said the agency would welcome an investigation.

"We stand by the intent of this fund and have many examples of good things it's done that benefit the taxpayers of this state," she said.

Cal Fire's own audit, released in 2009, raised questions about whether the fund was allowed. But many of the critical comments were dropped from the audit's final version.

The scrutiny follows similar revelations that the state Department of Parks and Recreation hid $20 million as budget cuts were forcing the closure of parks. Although the Department of Finance looked for other secret funds, it did not find Cal Fire's account with the prosecutors' association.

jeff.gottlieb@latimes.com

Read More..

Exploding the Phone: The Untold Story of the Teenagers and Outlaws Who Hacked Ma Bell

An excerpt from Exploding the Phone

by Phil Lapsley

“

Locke spent the next twenty-four hours in what felt like a scene from a 1940s detective movie: a barren room with nothing more than a wooden table, a chair for him, two chairs for his interrogators, and a bare lightbulb dangling from the ceiling. Sitting across from him, the FBI agent and the telephone security man worked hard to get him to confess to using the blue box.

Before smartphones and iPads, before the internet or the personal computer, a misfit group of technophiles, blind teenagers, hippies, and outlaws figured out how to hack the world’s largest machine: the telephone system. The following is an excerpt from the new book Exploding the Phone written by Philip D. Lapsley and published by Grove/Atlantic, which tells the story of the “phone phreaks.”

There it was again.

Jake Locke set down his cup and looked more closely at the classified ad. It was early afternoon on a clear spring day in Cambridge in 1967. Locke, an undergrad at Harvard University, had just gotten out of bed. A transplant from southern California, he didn’t quite fit in with Harvard’s button-down culture — another student had told him he looked like a “nerdy California surfer,” what with his black-framed eyeglasses, blond hair, blue eyes, and tall, slim build. Now in the midst of his sophomore slump, Locke found himself spending a lot of time sleeping late, cutting classes, and reading the newspaper to find interesting things to do. Pretty much anything seemed better than going to classes, in fact. (“John Locke” is a pseudonym).

It was a slow news day. The Crimson, Harvard’s student newspaper, didn’t have much in the way of interesting articles, so Locke once again found himself reading the classified ads over breakfast. He had become something of a connoisseur of these little bits of poetry — people selling cars, looking for roommates, even the occasional kooky personal ad probably intended as a joke between lovers—all expressed in a dozen or so words.

But this ad was different. It had been running for a while and it had started to bug him.

WANTED HARVARD MIT Fine Arts no. 13 notebook. (121 pages) & 40 page reply K.K. & C.R. plus 2,800; battery; m.f. El presidente no esta aqui asora, que lastima. B. David Box 11595 St. Louis, MO 63105.

Locke had seen similar classified ads from students who had lost their notes for one class or another and were panicking as exams rolled around. They often were placed in the Crimson in the hopes that some kind soul had found their notes and would return them. Fine Arts 13 was the introductory art appreciation class at Harvard, so that fit.

But nothing else about the ad made any sense. Fine Arts 13 wasn’t offered at MIT. And what was all the gibberish afterward? 2,800? Battery? M.f., K.K., C.R.? What was with the Spanish? And why was somebody in St. Louis, Missouri, running an ad in Cambridge, Massachusetts, looking for a notebook for a class at Harvard? Locke had watched the ad run every day for the past few weeks. Whoever they were, and whatever it was, they clearly wanted this notebook. Why were they so persistent?

One way to find out.

Locke looked around for a piece of paper and a pen. He wrote: “Dear B. David: I have your notebook. Let’s talk. Sincerely, Jake.”

He dropped the letter in the mail on his way into Harvard Square to find something interesting to do.

An envelope with a St. Louis, Missouri, postmark showed up in Locke’s mailbox a week later. Locke opened the envelope and read the single sheet of paper. Or rather, he tried to read it. It wasn’t in English. It seemed to be written in some sort of alien hieroglyphics. It was brief, only a paragraph or so long. The characters looked familiar somehow but not enough that he could decipher them.

Locke showed the letter to everyone he saw that day but nobody could read it. Later that evening, as Locke sat at the kitchen table in his dorm room and stared at the letter, trying to puzzle it out, one of his roommates came home. Shocked that Locke might actually be doing something that looked like homework, his roommate asked what he was working on. Locke passed the letter across the table and told him about it.

His roommate took one look and said, “It looks like Russian.”

Locke said, “That’s what I thought. But the characters don’t seem right.”

“Yeah. They’re not. In fact …” His roommate’s voice trailed off for a moment. “In fact, they’re mirror writing.”

“What?”

“You know, mirror writing. The letters are written backwards. See?”

Locke looked. Sure enough: backwards.

Locke and his roommate went to the mirror and transcribed the reversed lettering. It was Cyrillic — Russian letters. Fortunately, Locke’s roommate was taking a Russian class. They sat back down at the table and translated the letter.

“Dear Jake,” the letter read. “Thank you very much for your reply. However, I seriously doubt that you have what I need. I would strongly advise you to keep to yourself and not interfere. This is serious business and you could get into trouble.” Signed, B. David.

Locke sat back. Someone had put a cryptic ad in the newspaper. He’d responded. They sent him a letter. In mirror writing. In Russian. In 1967. During the cold war.

Spy ring.

It just didn’t get much cooler than this, Locke figured. Intriguing. Terrifying, even. And far, far better than going to class.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 View All

Read More..

The New Old Age Blog: In Blended Families, Responsibility Blurs

Every year, Fran McDowell waited for the summer week when she would sing in a choral festival in the North Carolina mountains, then spend a few days in a lakeside cabin with close women friends.

That getaway grew more complicated to arrange — but perhaps more necessary — after her husband, Herb Beadle, was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. They had a “gloriously happy” marriage — her first, his second — for 11 years, and she was more than willing to care for him in sickness as in health. But he could no longer manage alone in their Atlanta home.

For a few years, other family members pitched in to allow Ms. McDowell her cherished vacation. Eventually, though, she had to ask her husband’s daughter, a medical professional in another state, to take him into her home for a week.

She said no, then yes. Then, the day before Ms. McDowell was to drive him there, her stepdaughter again refused, leaving no time for alternate arrangements. If this had been her biological child, “I would have said, ‘Come on, don’t do this to me,’” Ms. McDowell said. Instead, reluctant to make waves, she canceled her trip.

“I think confrontation is riskier for stepparents,” she told me. “I was the compliant one who would bite my tongue rather than say what I thought.”

Ms. McDowell never told her stepdaughter, or anyone in the family, how angry and disappointed she was, or how difficult it was becoming to care for their father, who died three years ago at 86. She told the members of her dementia caregivers support group instead.

It was that group’s leader, Moira Keller, who e-mailed me to suggest this topic. A clinical social worker with the Sixty Plus program at Piedmont Atlanta Hospital, she wrote that “one of the biggest challenges I have is blended families in later life.”

Though I’ve written about the way the 1970s’ spike in divorces could complicate caregiving for adult children — more households to sustain, more siblings to either help or hinder — I hadn’t considered the impact on the older people themselves.

But Ms. Keller seems to be onto something. “The generation most likely to have stepchildren” — the boomers — “don’t need much care yet,” said Merril Silverstein, a Syracuse University sociologist co-editing a coming issue of the Journal of Marriage and the Family on stepfamilies in later life. “The crunch will come in 10 or 20 years.”

Initially, many adult children whose divorced or widowed parents remarry seem delighted, Ms. Keller said when we spoke. “They’re thrilled that Mom or Dad isn’t alone,” she said. “It’s a wonderful thing — until somebody gets sick.”

Then, she has found, “it gets really blurry. Who’s going to do what?” Grown children don’t have much history with these new spouses; they often feel less responsibility to intervene or help out, and stepparents may be unwilling to ask. Perhaps it’s unclear whether children or new spouses have decision-making authority.

“Older couples in this situation fall through the cracks,” Ms. Keller said.

Research shows that the ties which lead adult children to become caregivers — depending on how much contact they have with parents, how nearby they live, how obligated they feel — are weaker in stepchildren, Dr. Silverstein said. Money sometimes enters the equation too, Ms. Keller added, if biological children resent a parent’s spending their presumed inheritance on care for an ailing stepparent.

Adela Betsill, another of Ms. Keller’s support group members, married her longtime partner five years ago — her second marriage, his third. She has since given up her interior design business to care for Robert who, at 72, has also developed Alzheimer’s disease. His two children have had little involvement — perhaps because she’s just 49 and presumed able to handle everything.

Thus, though Robert’s son works from an office in their home, if Ms. Betsill needed to go out and asked him to remind his father to eat lunch, “he might, or he might not,” she said. “I don’t think he realizes it’s a burden.” So she has not asked.

Would it be different if she were his biological mother and he saw her wearing out under the strain? She thinks so, but it’s hard to know. After all, biological families also experience plenty of conflict and avoidance as elders age.

Still, that sense of reciprocity we often hear from caregivers — she took care of me when I was young, so I need to help out now that she’s old — doesn’t apply in late-life stepfamilies. Ms. Betsill didn’t raise this man, or his half sister.

Older couples who marry or remarry often discuss their finances, Ms. Keller has found. (An elder attorney, Craig Reaves, discussed the legal consequences here.) But illness and dependence may prove even more difficult subjects to broach.

“If I could yell one thing from a mountaintop,” Ms. Keller said, “it’s to talk about this stuff, too. Who’s going to take care of you if you become sick? Talk about that while you’re still healthy.”

---

Paula Span is the author of “When the Time Comes: Families With Aging Parents Share Their Struggles and Solutions.”

Read More..

DealBook: U.S. Accuses S.&P. of Fraud in Suit on Loan Bundles

The Justice Department filed civil fraud charges late on Monday against the nation’s largest credit-ratings agency, Standard & Poor’s, accusing the firm of inflating the ratings of mortgage investments and setting them up for a crash when the financial crisis struck.

The suit, filed in federal court in Los Angeles, is the first significant federal action against the ratings industry, which during the boom years reaped record profits as it bestowed gilt-edged ratings on complex bundles of home loans that quickly went sour. The high ratings made many investments appear safer than they actually were, and are now seen as having contributed to a crisis that brought the financial system and the broader economy to its knees.

More than a dozen state prosecutors are expected to join the federal suit, and the New York attorney general is preparing a separate action. The Securities and Exchange Commission has also been investigating possible wrongdoing at S.& P.

From September 2004 through October 2007, S.&P. “knowingly and with the intent to defraud, devised, participated in, and executed a scheme to defraud investors” in certain mortgage-related securities, according to the suit filed against the agency and its parent company, McGraw-Hill Companies. S.&P. also falsely represented that its ratings “were objective, independent, uninfluenced by any conflicts of interest,” the suit said.

S.& P., first contacted by federal enforcement officials three years ago, said in a statement Monday in anticipation of the suit that it had acted in good faith in issuing the ratings.

“A D.O.J. lawsuit would be entirely without factual or legal merit,” it said, adding that its competitors had given exactly the same ratings to all the securities it believed to be in question.

Settlement talks between S.& P. and the Justice Department broke down in the last two weeks after prosecutors sought a penalty in excess of $1 billion and insisted that the company admit wrongdoing, several people with knowledge of the talks said. That amount would wipe out the profits of McGraw-Hill for an entire year. S.& P. had proposed a settlement of around $100 million, the people said.

S.& P. also sought a deal that would allow it to neither admit nor deny guilt; the government pressed for an admission of guilt to at least one count of fraud, said the people. S.& P. told prosecutors it could not admit guilt without exposing itself to liability in a multitude of civil cases.

It was unclear whether state and federal authorities were looking at the other two major ratings agencies, Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch.

A spokesman for Moody’s declined to comment. A spokesman for Fitch, Daniel J. Noonan, said the agency could not comment on an action that appeared to focus on Standard & Poor’s, but added, “we have no reason to believe Fitch is a target of any such action.”

The case against S.& P. focuses on about 40 collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.’s, an exotic type of security made up of bundles of mortgage bonds, which in turn were composed of individual home loans. The securities were created at the height of the housing boom. S.& P. was paid fees of about $13 million for rating them.

Prosecutors have uncovered troves of e-mails written by S.& P. employees, some of them expressing strong concern about the way such securities were being rated. The firm gave the government more than 20 million pages of e-mails as part of its investigation, the people with knowledge of the process said.

Since the financial crisis in 2008, the ratings agencies’ business practices have been widely criticized and questions have been raised as to whether independent analysis was corrupted by Wall Street’s push for profits.

A Senate investigation made public in 2010 found that S.& P. and Moody’s used inaccurate rating models from 2004 to 2007 that failed to predict how high-risk mortgages would perform; allowed competitive pressures to affect their ratings; and failed to reassess past ratings after improving their models in 2006.

The companies failed to assign adequate staff to examine exotic investments, and failed to take mortgage fraud, lax underwriting and “unsustainable home price appreciation” into account in their models, the inquiry found.

“Rating agencies continue to create an even bigger monster — the C.D.O. market,” one S.& P. employee wrote in an internal e-mail in December 2006. “Let’s hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of card falters.”

Another S.& P. employee wrote in an instant message the next April, reproduced in the complaint: “We rate every deal. It could be structured by cows and we would rate it.”

The three major ratings agencies are typically paid by the issuers of the securities they rate — in this case, the banks that had packaged the mortgage-backed securities and wanted to market them. The investors were not involved in the process but depended on the rating agencies’ assessments.

Although the three agencies tend to track one another, each has its own statistical methods for assessing the likelihood that C.D.O.s and residential mortgage-backed securities, or R.M.B.S., will default. That has led to speculation that S.& P. analysts knew their method yielded unrealistic ratings, but issued the ratings anyway.

“As S.&P. knew, contrary to its representations to the public, S.&P.’s desire for increased revenue and market share in the RMBS and CDO ratings markets, and its resulting desire to maintain and enhance its relationships with issuers that drove its ratings business, improperly influenced S.&P. to downplay and disregard the true extent of the credit risks,” the suit says.

In its statement on Monday, S.& P. said it had begun stress-testing the mortgage-backed securities it rated as early as 2005, trying to see how they would perform in a severe market downturn. S.& P. said it had also sent out early warning signals, downgrading hundreds of mortgage-backed securities, starting in 2006. Nor was it the only one to have underestimated the coming crisis, it said — even the Federal Reserve’s open market committee believed that any problems within the housing sector could be contained.

The Justice Department, the company said, “would be wrong in contending that S.& P. ratings were motivated by commercial considerations and not issued in good faith.”

For many years, the ratings agencies have defended themselves successfully in civil litigation by saying their ratings were independent opinions, protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to free speech. Developments in the wake of the financial crisis have raised questions about the agencies’ independence however. For example, one federal judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, ruled in 2009 that the First Amendment did not apply in a lawsuit over ratings issued by S.& P. and Moody’s, because the mortgage-backed securities at issue had not been offered to the public at large. Judge Scheindlin also agreed with the plaintiffs, who argued the ratings were not opinions, but misrepresentations, possibly the result of fraud or negligence.

The federal action will be the first time a credit-rating agency has been charged under a 1989 law intended to protect taxpayers from frauds involving federally insured financial institutions, which since the financial crisis has been used against a number of federally insured banks, including Wells Fargo, Bank of America and Citigroup.

The government is taking a novel approach by accusing S.& P. of defrauding a federally insured institution and therefore injuring the taxpayer.

Among others, the compliant includes the demise of Wescorp, a federally insured credit union in Los Angeles that went bankrupt after investing in mortgage securities rated by S.& P. Wescorp is included as one example of the contended fraud, and as a way to bring the case in California. The suit was filed in Federal District Court for the Central District of California.

Michael J. de la Merced contributed reporting.

Read More..

Scientists identify remains as those of King Richard III

LONDON – More than 500 years after his death in battle, scientists announced Monday that they had definitively identified a skeleton unearthed in northern England last summer as that of Richard III, the medieval king portrayed by Shakespeare as a homicidal tyrant who killed his two young nephews in order to ascend the throne.

DNA from the bones, found beneath the ruins of an old church, match that of a living descendant of the monarch’s sister, researchers said.

"Rarely have the conclusions of academic research been so eagerly awaited," Richard Buckley, the lead archaeologist on the excavation, told a phalanx of reporters Monday morning. "Beyond reasonable doubt, the individual exhumed…is indeed Richard III, the last Plantagenet king of England."

The dramatic announcement capped a brief hunt for Richard's remains whose progress has been closely charted by international media and whose success has been barely short of miraculous.

Working from old maps of Leicester, about 100 miles northwest of London, archaeologists from the local university had less than a month to dig in a small municipal parking lot -- one of the few spaces not built over in the crowded city center. The team stumbled upon the ruins of the medieval priory where records say Richard was buried, then found the bones a few days later last September.

"It was an extraordinary discovery that stunned all of us," said Buckley.

The nearly-intact skeleton bore obvious traces of trauma to the skull and of scoliosis, a curvature of the spine that matched contemporary descriptions of Richard’s appearance. The feet were missing, almost certainly the result of later disturbance, and the hands were crossed at the wrist, which suggests that they may have been tied.

Scientists at the University of Leicester, which pioneered the practice of DNA fingerprinting, were able to extract samples from the bones and compare them to a man descended from Richard III's sister Anne. The match through the maternal line was virtually perfect.

"The DNA evidence points to these being the remains of Richard III," said Turi King, the project’s geneticist.

Richard reigned from 1483 to 1485, and occupies a unique place in England's long line of colorful rulers. He was the last king to be killed in combat, at the Battle of Bosworth Field, by his successor, Henry VII. His death ended the Plantagenet dynasty and ushered in the long era of the Tudors, including Henry VIII and Elizabeth I.

Jo Appleby, an osteologist at the university, said the skeleton belonged to an adult male in his late 20s to late 30s; Richard III was 32 when he died. The man would have stood 5-foot-8 at full height, but the curved spine would have made him appear shorter.

The skull was riddled with wounds strongly indicative of death in battle, including two blows from bladed weapons, either of which would have been fatal, Appleby said.

Richard III is one of England's most controversial monarchs, reviled by some as a bloodthirsty despot who stopped at nothing to gain power but revered by others who insist that he has been unfairly maligned. His supporters note that the repugnant portrait of Richard in today's popular imagination is based almost entirely on accounts from the time of the usurping Tudors, especially Shakespeare's indelible characterization of him as a "deform'd, unfinish'd" man without scruples.

Fans say Richard III was an enlightened, capable ruler whose important social reforms included the presumption of innocence for defendants and the granting of bail, which remain pillars of the legal system in both Britain and the U.S.

What happened to Richard's two nephews, however, who were his rivals for the throne and who were shut up in the Tower of London as young boys, never to be seen again, remains a mystery.

ALSO:

Race to unearth a royal mystery

Bones found in hunt for King Richard III's remains

Netanyahu officially asked to put together new Israeli government

Read More..

Amputee Soccer Players Face Their Prosthetists — On the Field

LONDON — The beautiful game was exactly that as amputee footballers took to a pitch in the heart of the city to challenge the men who made their prosthetics.

Players on both sides of the field share a deep passion for the game Americans call soccer, and a deep respect for what their opponents have done. Three of the men on the field lost limbs to the game they love, and feel a debt of gratitude to the prosthetists who helped them keep playing. James Catchpole, who organizes an amputee team based in north London and in this game played for the amputees’ “all-star” team the LA Spurs, sees the game against the Roehampton Prosthetists as a win-win.

“In a way, it reflects badly on them if we lose,” he said. “It will mean they haven’t supplied us with good enough legs.”

Amputee football is growing in the United Kingdom, with teams popping up from East Anglia to Sheffield to Cardiff. Dean Heffer, sports officer for the Limbless Association, wants to get the British game in line with the internationally recognized version of amputee football, then establish a British team. The goal is to see amputee football recognized as a Paralympic sport.

The mutual respect these men have for each other comes through in the pre-match banter as Heffer teased Andrew Rees, a prosthetist at Queen Mary Hospital in London.

“Make sure you put the foot on the right way,” Heffer joked as Rees helps him into his gear.

“No promises,” Rees replied with a grin.

Teasing aside, the skill shown in a game featured in the documentary series Ford’s Fantastic World of Football is impressive indeed. Some of the players wear their prosthetics and others move about on crutches, but all show remarkable grace and fluidity of movement. These guys want people to know that amputee athletes are extraordinarily skilled, and no less driven than their able-bodied compatriots.

“What we’re doing is quite abnormal, which is showing people that you can play football with one leg and actually be as good if not better than able-bodied opposition,” Catchpole said.

Michael Ishiguzo proved the point. He was a professional footballer in Nigeria and lost his leg due to an improperly treated fracture suffered during a game. Yet he’s lost none of the passion, or skill, that made him a top-tier player in his homeland. He has no trouble confusing opponents with beautifully executed feints and defense-splitting passes.

“The quality of football in this team is top notch,” Ishiguzo said. “The speed, balance, passing and agility are phenomenal.”

The two teams played three half-hour games at a staggering pace, with the Spurs winning two of three matches.

“This is a much tougher game than last year,” Rees said. “They’ve improved ten-fold. They were pressing us hard up the pitch and just quicker to every second ball. I’m just glad we managed to win one.”

Read More..

Ex-Israeli security chiefs speak out in Oscar documentary nominee

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The Oscar-nominated documentary “The Gatekeepers” focuses on Israel, but its director says that all countries can gain insight about the risks that arise if secretive security agencies operate without adequate restraints.

In “The Gatekeepers,” six former heads of Israeli internal security and intelligence agency Shin Bet reflect on their failures and successes in gathering information on state enemies, orchestrating secret operations and tracking militants. They also offer some unexpected perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“I found myself more attracted to those who doubt, those who ask themselves questions,” director Dror Moreh told Reuters. “I am always afraid of people who don’t have questions, who don’t doubt.”

The English- and Hebrew-language film opened in New York and Los Angeles on Friday, and premieres in the UK in April, following a brief run at the end of 2012 that qualified it for its Oscar nomination for best documentary feature.

The film will compete at the February 24 Oscar ceremony with “5 Broken Cameras,” a view of the Middle East conflict seen through Palestinian eyes, AIDS documentary “How to Survive a Plague,” military rape film “The Invisible War,” and “Searching for Sugar Man” about a U.S. folk singer who becomes a South African pop icon.

Beginning with Avraham Shalom, who oversaw the Shin Bet from 1980 to 1986, “The Gatekeepers” covers the period through Yuval Diskin, whose tenure ended in 2011.

The former security chiefs discuss events such as the agency-ordered killing of two Palestinian bus hijackers, a plot by Jewish extremists to blow up the Dome of the Rock shrine in Jerusalem, the 1995 assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and the role the agency plays in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

DEFINING TORTURE

Always present is a struggle to balance security with ethics and politics, and several of the men discuss the scandals the agency faced over the use of what Shin Bet terms “exceptional practices” in interrogations.

Moreh draws parallels between Israel’s debates about ethical security practices and the United States’ struggle to define torture and regulate its own practices in its war on terrorism.

“I think at the end of the day any organization that has so much power like those clandestine organizations – Shin Bet, CIA, FBI, Mossad – has to have the law above it giving guidelines,” he said.

“When there was no oversight of the judicial system on those organizations, they acted as if there was no law, in terms of interrogating people, torturing, killing.”

He blames what he calls murky or non-existent regulations for practices that have sparked public anger worldwide, from the use of waterboarding to the abuse of prisoners by American soldiers at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison.

“They were stupid Americans who the system gave absolute power over other human beings,” Moreh said. “They weren’t trained to deal with that, they weren’t trained in interrogating, and this is what led to what happened in Abu Ghraib.”

The former security chiefs’ reflections are a mixture of affirmation and regret, but all six agree that the only way for their country to achieve peace is to work with Palestinians instead of against them.

They criticize Israeli politicians for turning a blind eye to settlements in occupied Palestinian territory, and for sometimes dealing lightly with Jewish extremists.

Ami Ayalon, who headed Shin Bet from 1996 to 2000, summed up their collective thoughts, saying, “We win every battle, but lose the war.”

Moreh believes that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the most important issue facing Israel and hopes U.S. President Barack Obama will take a more active role in diplomatic efforts in his second term.

“I think this is like two kindergarten children – the Palestinians and the Israelis – who need the kindergarten caretaker to help them,” he said. “They need a grown-up to tell them, ‘Enough! Israel, Palestine, this is what you need to do, do it.’”

(Editing by Jill Serjeant and Peter Cooney)

Movies News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Title Post: Ex-Israeli security chiefs speak out in Oscar documentary nominee
Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/ex-israeli-security-chiefs-speak-out-in-oscar-documentary-nominee/
Link To Post : Ex-Israeli security chiefs speak out in Oscar documentary nominee
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment

Read More..

Medicines Co. Licenses Rights to Cholesterol Drug

The drug, known as ALN-PCS, inhibits a protein in the body known as PCSK9. Such drugs might one day be used to treat millions of people who do not achieve sufficient cholesterol-lowering from commonly used statins, such as Lipitor.

The Medicines Company will pay $25 million initially and as much as $180 million later if certain development and sales goals are met, under the deal expected to be formally announced Monday. It will also pay Alnylam, which is based in Cambridge, Mass., double-digit royalties on global sales.

That is small payment for a drug with presumably a huge potential market, probably reflecting that Alnylam is still in the first of three phases of clinical trials, well behind some far bigger competitors.

The team of Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals is already entering the third and final stage of trials with their PCSK9 inhibitor, as is Amgen. Pfizer and Roche are in midstage trials.

ALN-PCS is different from the other drugs. It uses a gene-silencing mechanism called RNA interference, aimed at shutting off production of the PCSK9 protein. The other drugs are proteins called monoclonal antibodies that inhibit the action of PCSK9 after it has been formed.

Alnylam and the Medicines Company hope that turning off the faucet, as it were, will be more efficient than mopping the floor, allowing their drug to be given less frequently and in smaller amounts.

But that has yet to be proved. No drug using RNA interference has reached the market.

The Medicines Company, based in Parsippany, N.J., generates almost all of its revenue from one product — Angiomax, an anticlotting drug used when patients receive stents to open clogged arteries.

Dr. Clive A. Meanwell, chief executive of the company, said that PCSK9 inhibitors are likely to be used at first mainly by patients with severe lipid problems under the care of interventional cardiologists, the same doctors who use Angiomax. “It really is quite adjacent to what we do,” he said.

The Medicines Company licensed Angiomax from Biogen Idec, where the drug was invented and initially developed under a team led by Dr. John M. Maraganore, who is now the chief executive of Alnylam.

“It’s a bit like getting the band back together,” Dr. Maraganore said.

Read More..

DealBook: New Details Suggest a Defense in SAC Case

At the center of the government’s insider trading case against a former portfolio manager at the hedge fund SAC Capital Advisors is a trade that directly involves Steven A. Cohen, the billionaire owner of the fund.

New details about the case have emerged that could cast doubt on the way that trade has been portrayed by the authorities, suggesting a possible line of defense for the portfolio manager and raising questions about whether the government will be able to build a case against Mr. Cohen, who has long been in the cross hairs of an investigation for insider trading on Wall Street.

Federal prosecutors have claimed that SAC dumped millions of shares of two pharmaceutical companies in 2008 after the former employee, Mathew Martoma, received secret information from a doctor about problems with a new Alzheimer’s drug.

In bringing its charges, the government said that SAC not only sold out of its position, but also bet against — or shorted — the drug companies’ stocks before the public announcement of the bad news. The SAC short position, according to prosecutors, allowed it to earn big profits after shares of the companies, Elan and Wyeth, plummeted.

“The fund didn’t merely avoid losses, it greedily schemed to profit further by shorting Elan and Wyeth stock,” said April Brooks, a senior F.B.I. official in New York, during a press conference on Nov. 20, the day Mr. Martoma was arrested.

Internal SAC trading records, according to people directly involved in the case, indicate that the hedge fund did not have a negative bet in place in advance of the announcement of the drug trial’s disappointing results. Instead, the records indicated that SAC, through a series of trades, including a complex transaction known as an equity swap, had virtually no exposure — neither long nor short — heading into the disclosure of the drug data.

A different narrative surrounding the firm’s trading could help Mr. Martoma, who has pleaded not guilty to securities fraud and conspiracy in what the government calls the most lucrative insider trading case ever charged.

The government, however, does have powerful evidence against Mr. Martoma. Prosecutors say the fund avoided losses by selling its roughly $700 million stake in Elan and Wyeth. If, as the government says, Mr. Martoma caused SAC to sell the shares — and then short them — while possessing important, nonpublic information, that would constitute an insider trading crime. And prosecutors have secured the testimony of the doctor who says he leaked the drug trial data to Mr. Martoma.

Still, perhaps more important, the trading records may complicate a government effort to pursue a case against Mr. Cohen. The SAC founder has not been accused of any wrongdoing, and has said he acted appropriately at all times.

In bringing charges against Mr. Martoma, prosecutors appeared to be circling nearer to Mr. Cohen. The criminal complaint against Mr. Martoma noted that Mr. Cohen had spent 20 minutes on the telephone with the portfolio manager the night before SAC began selling its shares. Prosecutors have not claimed that Mr. Cohen knew that Mr. Martoma had confidential information about the drug trials. (Mr. Martoma has refused so far to cooperate in helping the government build a case against his former boss.)

Yet if the 2008 trade is a possible avenue for the government, it is running out of time to bring a case against Mr. Cohen. Under the statute of limitations for insider trading crimes, the government would have to file a criminal case against him by mid-July. That deadline is the five-year anniversary of the trade in question, unless it could prove a conspiracy with Mr. Martoma that continued well past then.

Prosecutors have not sought to reach a “tolling agreement” with Mr. Cohen, which would allow the government additional time to bring a case past the statute of limitations, according to people briefed on the matter. The S.E.C., meanwhile, is weighing whether to file a civil fraud lawsuit against the fund connected to the drug-stock trades.

All this comes as a Feb. 14 cutoff approaches for SAC clients to ask for their money back. The fund has told employees that it expects at least $1 billion in withdrawals from the $14 billion fund amid the intensifying investigation. SAC has a standard quarterly redemption deadline.

Several other factors could make it difficult for the government to implicate Mr. Cohen. SAC is well known for its aggressive, rapid-fire trading style, and several former employees say that there is nothing unusual about the fund’s exiting a large position over just a few days.

“It’s one thing to bring an insider trading charge against a market novice who pours his 401(k) into a stock after hanging up the phone with an insider,” said Morris J. Fodeman, a former prosecutor and now a white-collar criminal defense lawyer at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. “But it’s far more difficult to make a case against a sophisticated hedge fund that routinely takes large positions and employs complex trading strategies.”

Moreover, both inside and outside SAC, there had been much controversy and debate surrounding the effectiveness of the Alzheimer’s drug, called bapineuzumab, leading up to the July 2008 release of the companies’ clinical results. Mr. Martoma’s colleagues in SAC’s health care group raised specific concerns with Mr. Cohen about the wisdom of holding such a large position in the two companies. And while preliminary data announced by Elan and Wyeth in June offered encouraging news, they also suggested potential problems.

“We believe potentially confounding factors will continue to fuel controversy over bapineuzumab,” wrote Caroline Y. Stewart, a drug stock analyst with Piper Jaffray, reacting to the preliminary results.

On July 11, another Wall Street analyst, Jonathan Aschoff at Brean Murray Carret & Company, raised red flags about a sharp run-up in the price of Elan’s shares heading into the presentation of the data.

“We have numerous concerns with the clinical development of bapineuzumab, and what we viewed to be underwhelming top-line Phase 2 results make us highly doubtful of success,” Mr. Aschoff wrote. “In our opinion, this strategy only serves to increase clinical risk and stoke our pessimism.”

The uncertainty relating to the Alzheimer drug’s clinical results could help explain what led Mr. Cohen to hedge SAC’s position so that it had “neutral exposure,” in Wall Street parlance, heading into disclosure of the trial results.

The short positions that SAC established in Elan and Wyeth were matched almost perfectly to offset an equity swap that effectively provided the fund with exposure to 12 million Wyeth shares, according to the SAC documents. An equity swap mimics ordinary shares and gives investors like hedge funds the benefits of stock ownership without actually owning the shares. Funds often use these complex derivatives to accumulate a large position but not tip off the market.

When government officials announced the case against Mr. Martoma, they made no mention of the swap. Instead, they emphasized how SAC had jettisoned its Elan and Wyeth shares and then brazenly accumulated short positions in both companies.

“The charges unsealed today describe cheating — coming and going,” Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, said in opening remarks during the press conference. “Specifically, insider trading first on the long side, and then on the short side.”

The government noted the swap position in its court papers, but did not factor it into SAC’s overall gains and losses in Elan and Wyeth. Because SAC did not trade the Wyeth swap, instead leaving the position in place, it could not be part of any insider trading charge.

Representatives for the United States attorney’s office and the S.E.C. declined to comment. An SAC spokesman declined to comment, as did Charles A. Stillman, the lawyer for Mr. Martoma.

Prosecutors have built their case against Mr. Martoma by securing the cooperation of Dr. Sidney Gilman, a neurology professor who ostensibly leaked to him the confidential data about the drug being jointly developed by Elan and Wyeth. The companies hired Dr. Gilman to oversee the clinical trials. SAC paid Dr. Gilman about $108,000 as a consultant.

The government said that Mr. Cohen’s fund accumulated a roughly $700 million combined stake in Elan and Wyeth based on Mr. Martoma’s recommendation. SAC’s equity swap with respect to Wyeth, however, added $566 million in exposure.

On Thursday, July 17, 2008, as the drug trials neared completion, Dr. Gilman told Mr. Martoma that patients were experiencing serious side effects, the government said. Three days later, on a Sunday, with the markets closed, Mr. Martoma had the 20-minute conversation with Mr. Cohen, according to telephone records cited in the criminal complaint. Prosecutors said that Mr. Martoma told his boss that he was no longer “comfortable” with the investments.

On Monday morning, July 21, at Mr. Cohen’s direction, SAC’s head trader began selling the fund’s 10.5 million shares of Elan and 7.1 million shares of Wyeth. By July 29 — the day that the companies announced the trial results — SAC had not only sold out of its Elan and Wyeth holdings but also established short positions in the stocks. SAC was short about 4.5 million shares of Elan and 3.3 million shares of Wyeth. The fund also purchased a small number of Elan put options, a bet that the company’s shares would decline.

The 12 million-share equity swap position in Wyeth, however, counterbalanced the short exposure. SAC was short 4.5 million shares of Elan but, taking the swap into account, effectively long about 8.7 million shares of Wyeth. On July 30, the first trading day after the companies disclosed the negative trial results, Elan’s stock fell about 42 percent and Wyeth’s stock dropped about 12 percent.

Federal prosecutors said that SAC’s trading ahead of the announcement allowed the fund to avoid $194 million in losses by exiting the Elan and Wyeth positions, and then also earn about $83 million on the short trades. But SAC also had paper losses of about $70 million on its Wyeth swap, almost entirely negating any gains from the short sales.

While such details would seem to contradict how authorities have described the trading, prosecutors could argue that SAC had little choice but to leave the swaps in place, and that was part of the strategy to trade on inside information. That is because selling a swap would be difficult to do without attracting attention in the marketplace. If SAC had sold its swaps, it would have had to notify the Wall Street bank that it entered into the swap transaction with and, in turn, the bank’s trader would have most likely sold the shares on the open market.

Read More..