Markets Wired - Page 1028 of 1422 - Global Financial Market News and Press Releases

FTC Mails Refund Checks to Consumers Allegedly Defrauded by Telemarketers Who Charged a Fee, Promising to Help Lower Their Credit Card Interest Rates

An administrator working for the Federal Trade Commission today began mailing refund checks to more than 4,800 consumers allegedly defrauded by National Card Monitor, LLC (National), a telemarketing operation that promised to substantially lower consumers’ credit card interest rates for an advance fee.

In July 2013, National settled an FTC complaint, agreeing to provide the FTC with lists of consumer victims and to have their assets frozen by the court. Based on the money recovered, a refund check for $25.13 will be mailed to defrauded consumers. The checks must be cashed within 60 days of when they are issued.

The FTC’s refund administrator in this matter is Gilardi & Co., LLC. Consumers who have questions about the refund program or whether they may still qualify for a refund can call Gillard’s hotline number at 1-877-295-8829. The FTC also has a website where consumers may obtain general information about the agency’s consumer refund program and answers to frequently asked questions. The FTC never requires consumers to pay money or provide information before redress checks can be cashed.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

Federal Appeals Court Upholds FTC Order Finding Ohio Hospital Acquisition Was Anticompetitive

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a Federal Trade Commission Decision and Order that found ProMedica Health System’s acquisition of rival St. Luke’s Hospital was anticompetitive and likely would lead to higher prices for consumers in the Toledo, Ohio area. According to the Court of Appeals, “[t]he Commission’s analysis of this merger was comprehensive, carefully reasoned, and supported by substantial evidence in the record.”

“The Sixth Circuit’s decision affirming the Commission’s ruling is a victory for the residents of Lucas County, Ohio, and ensures that they will continue to benefit from competition,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. “As this decision demonstrates, the FTC’s vigilant enforcement of the antitrust laws in health care provider markets helps deliver lower cost, higher quality health care to consumers.”

The FTC staff challenged the acquisition in January 2011, alleging that the loss of competition would significantly harm patients, employers, and employees in the Toledo area by eliminating significant, beneficial competition between ProMedica and St. Luke’s through the creation of a combined hospital system with an increased ability to obtain supra-competitive reimbursement rates from commercial health plans, and, ultimately, from their members. In an Initial Decision, Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell ruled largely in favor of the FTC staff.

The Court of Appeals ruling upholds the Commission’s decision finding that ProMedica’s acquisition of St. Luke’s was likely to substantially lessen competition and increase prices for general acute-care inpatient hospital services and inpatient obstetric services sold to commercial health plans. In addition to agreeing with the Commission that the merger was anticompetitive, the Court of Appeals also upheld the Commission’s order requiring ProMedica to divest St. Luke’s to an FTC-approved buyer within 180 days after the order becomes final and effective.

FTC Staff Submits Comments to Chicago City Council on Proposed Regulation of Transportation Network Providers

Federal Trade Commission staff submitted written comments to Alderman Brendan Reilly of the Chicago City Council, in response to a request for comments on a proposed ordinance that would provide for the licensing and operation of transportation network providers (TNPs), particularly software applications that enable consumers to arrange for transportation services via personal vehicles.

According to the comment by staff of the FTC’s Office of Policy Planning, Bureau of Competition, and Bureau of Economics, applications for arranging transportation using personal vehicles may expand transportation options, better satisfy consumer demand, increase competition, and promote a more economically efficient use of personal vehicles.

The comment states that, if regulation of TNP services are warranted at all, they should “focus primarily on ensuring the safety of customers and drivers, deterring deceptive practices relating to fares, safety and liability, and other terms of use, and addressing other consumer protection issues, especially data security and the prevention of identity theft.” In particular, “[r]egulations should not in purpose or effect favor one group of competitors over another or impose unnecessary burdens on applications or drivers that impede their ability to compete without any justification that benefits the public interest.”

The comment notes that some provisions in the proposed ordinance may unnecessarily impede competition, such as requiring an annual $25,000 fee for a non-transferable TNP license. The city council should “carefully consider the justification for and effect of these fees on TNPs and competition,” the staff comment states. The comment recommends that any such fees should be no greater than necessary to cover administrative costs and structured in a way that avoids unnecessarily inhibiting or deterring TNP entry and expansion in the marketplace.

Another provision in the proposed ordinance would permit TNPs to calculate fees for their services in only three ways and does not expressly recognize or permit demand-based pricing, which can be more responsive to consumer preferences than fixed pricing models. The comment recommends that, absent evidence that a particular pricing model will harm consumers, the ordinance “should clearly allow for greater flexibility and experimentation in structuring fees in order to facilitate innovative forms of pricing that may benefit consumers. To the extent that evidence of such harm is received, any restriction designed to address that harm should be narrowly crafted to minimize its anticompetitive impact.”

The proposed ordinance also would require each TNP to have significantly more liability insurance coverage than is required for taxicab licensees and other comparable public passenger vehicles and would prohibit TNP drivers from picking up or dropping off passengers at O’Hare International Airport, Midway International Airport, or McCormick Place convention center. Further, it would prohibit TNP application firms from owning vehicles, providing financing for obtaining, leasing, or owning vehicles, or having a beneficial interest in them, and prohibit TNP vehicles from displaying commercial advertising. The comment urges the City Council to consider the probable anticompetitive consequences of these restrictions, whether each of them is supported by evidence of harm to consumers or other public concerns, and whether there are less restrictive options available to achieve public benefit without inhibiting competition.

Finally, the comment notes that the proposed ordinance would require TNPs to make available operations records and certain customer, driver, and trip data to the city. The staff comment suggests that the City Council consider whether this information is needed and, if so, for what purpose. The comment cautions against publicly disclosing or sharing operational information, such as real-time trip data, among competitors involved in facilitating or supplying passenger vehicle transportation services. “If shared, this sort of data might compromise proprietary business strategies and facilitate tacit or explicit collusion among competing service providers. Such collusion would harm consumers through, for example, higher prices, decreased output, decreased quality, or reduced innovation. Any such information, therefore, should be treated as confidential business information.”

The Commission vote approving the comments was 4-0. (FTC File No. V140007; the staff contact is Christopher Grengs, Office of Policy Planning, 202-326-2612).

The FTC’s Office of Policy Planning works with the Commission and its staff to develop long-range competition and consumer policy initiatives, consistent with the FTC’s unique mission to conduct research and engage in advocacy on issues that affect competition, consumers, and the U.S. economy. The Office of Policy Planning submits advocacy filings; conducts research and studies; organizes public workshops; issues reports; and advises staff on cases raising new or complex policy and legal issues. To reach the Office of Policy Planning, send an e-mail to [email protected]. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, read our blogs, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez to Participate in International Competition Network Conference in Marrakech, Morocco

Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Edith Ramirez will participate in the 13th annual International Competition Network (ICN) conference in Marrakech, Morocco, from April 23-25, 2014. At the conference, antitrust officials and private sector antitrust experts from around the world and representatives of intergovernmental organizations will discuss key competition issues and recent ICN work in the areas of agency effectiveness, mergers, unilateral conduct, cartels, and advocacy.

Conference panels will discuss the application of competition law to state-owned enterprises, competition agencies’ investigative processes, competition advocacy, effective anti-cartel enforcement, legal standards applicable to unilateral conduct, and international enforcement cooperation. Member agencies also will finalize work programs for the coming year and engage in long-term planning.

Chairwoman Ramirez will give remarks during the plenary panel on international cooperation in merger cases.

In October 2001, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice joined with antitrust agencies from 13 other jurisdictions around the world (Australia, Canada, the European Union, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and Zambia) to create the ICN. The ICN now includes 129 member agencies from 116 jurisdictions. The goal of the ICN is to provide a forum for antitrust agencies to address enforcement and policy issues of common interest and to propose ways that member governments could more closely align their policies and enforcement.

The following portions of this year’s conference will be open to the press:

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23 (Day 1)

4:30 a.m. (EDT), 9:30 a.m. (DST) – Opening Session

The conference’s opening session will include remarks by Abdelilah Benkirane, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Morocco, Abdelali Benamour, President of the Moroccan Competition Council, and Andreas Mundt, ICN Chair and President of Germany’s Bundeskartellamt.

6:15 a.m. (EDT), 11:15 a.m. (DST) – Special Project Session

Mohammed Abouelaziz, Legal Adviser to the President of the Moroccan Competition Council, will moderate a panel discussion on state-owned enterprises under competition law.

7:15 a.m. (EDT), 12:15 p.m. (DST) – Agency Effectiveness Session Advocacy Session

Paul O’Brien, International Counsel at U.S. Federal Trade Commission, will moderate a panel on investigative process. Panelists will include Alexander Italianer, Director General of the European Commission’s Directorate for Competition, Alejandra Palacios Prieto, President of the Mexican Federal Economic Competition Commission, and Kazuyuki Sugimoto, Chairman of the Japan Fair Trade Commission.

THURSDAY, APRIL 24 (Day 2)

4:00 a.m. (EDT), 9:00 am. (DST) – Advocacy Session

The ICN’s Advocacy Working Group will present a panel discussion on competition agency advocacy. Panelists will include David Currie, Chairman of the United Kingdom Competition and Markets Authority.

6:30 a.m. (EDT), 11:30 am. (DST) – Cartel Session

John Pecman, Commissioner of the Competition Bureau Canada, will moderate a panel discussion on how the ICN promotes effective cartel enforcement. Panelists will include

Bill Baer, Assistant Attorney General of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division.

12:30 p.m. (EDT), 5:00 p.m. (DST) – Unilateral Conduct Session

The ICN’s Unilateral Conduct Working Group will present a panel discussion on unilateral conduct. Panelists will include Renata Hesse, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division and Massimo Motta, Chief Competition Economist of the European Commission’s Directorate General for Competition.

FRIDAY, APRIL 25 (Day 3)

4:30 a.m. (EDT), 9:30 am. (DST) – Merger Session

Salvatore Rebecchini, Commissioner of the Italian Competition Authority, will moderate a panel discussion on international cooperation in merger cases. Panelists Edith Ramirez, FTC Chairwoman and Rod Sims, Chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

7:45 a.m. (EDT), 12:45 am. (DST) – Closing

The conference will be held at the Palmeraie in Marrakech, Morocco. More information about the conference is available at http://www.icnmarrakech2014.ma/. ICN documents are available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org.

Deposit Insurance Coverage

FIL-17-2014
April 18, 2014

Deposit Insurance Coverage

Free Nationwide Seminars for Bank Officers and Employees

Printable Format:

FIL-17-2014 – PDF (PDF Help)

Summary:

The FDIC will conduct the following 12 free seminars on deposit insurance coverage for bank officers and employees between May 6, 2014, and December 4, 2014:

Four sessions on “Fundamentals of Deposit Insurance Coverage” (Fundamentals Seminar), which will provide an overview of the rules for determining deposit insurance coverage for the nine most common account ownership categories.
Four sessions on “Deposit Insurance Coverage for Revocable Trust Accounts” (Revocable Trust Seminar), which will focus on the rules for informal and formal revocable trust accounts.
Four sessions on “Advanced Topics in Deposit Insurance Coverage” (Advanced Topics Seminar), which will focus on government accounts, mortgage servicing accounts, bank mergers, pass-through deposit insurance coverage, and other deposit insurance topics.

Statement of Applicability to Institutions with Total Assets Less Than $1 Billion: This Financial Institution Letter applies to all FDIC-insured institutions.

Highlights:

The FDIC will conduct 12 free seminars on deposit insurance coverage for bank officers and employees between May 6, 2014, and December 4, 2014.
The Fundamentals Seminar will consist of a 70-minute presentation, and the Revocable Trust Seminar and the Advanced Topics Seminar will each consist of a 45-minute presentation. Each seminar also will be followed by a question-and-answer period with FDIC subject matter experts that will generally last for one hour.
Advance registration is required for each seminar. See the attachment for registration instructions.
Each seminar will link to a slide presentation, and participants are strongly encouraged to have a copy of the slides during the audio presentation. See the attachment for accessing the slide presentation.

Continuation of FIL-17-2014

Financial Institution Letters
FIL-17-2014
April 18, 2014

Deposit Insurance Coverage
Free Nationwide Seminars for Bank Officers and Employees

The FDIC will conduct 12 free seminars on deposit insurance coverage for bank officers and employees between May 6, 2014, and December 4, 2014, including:

Four sessions on “Fundamentals of Deposit Insurance Coverage” (Fundamentals Seminar), which will provide an overview of the rules for determining coverage for the nine most common account ownership categories;
Four sessions on “Deposit Insurance Coverage for Revocable Trust Accounts” (Revocable Trust Seminar), which will focus on the rules for informal and formal revocable trust accounts; and
Four sessions on “Advanced Topics in Deposit Insurance Coverage” (Advanced Topics Seminar), which will focus on government accounts, mortgage servicing accounts, bank mergers, pass-through deposit insurance coverage, and other deposit insurance topics.

The objective of the seminars is to provide bank employees with basic knowledge of the FDIC’s deposit insurance rules needed to help depositors correctly determine their deposit insurance coverage. Participation in the seminars is strictly voluntary and is open to employees and officers of all FDIC-insured depository institutions.

The Fundamentals Seminar will consist of a 70-minute presentation, and the Revocable Trust Seminar and the Advanced Topics Seminar will each consist of a 45-minute presentation. A question-and-answer period, which typically lasts an hour, will follow each seminar. Each seminar is linked to a slide presentation (see attachment).

The seminars are free, but advance registration is required. Upon completing the registration process, participants will receive an RSVP e-mail confirmation, along with a PIN that is required to join the seminar on the date selected. If you register but do not receive an e-mail confirmation, verify the e-mail address provided and repeat the registration process.

The email confirmation will contain a “join the meeting” link that automatically starts the Microsoft Office Live Meeting Client and connects participants to the seminar. This link will be active 30 minutes prior to the scheduled start time of each event. If this is the first time you are joining a meeting, you may need to install the Microsoft Office Live Meeting Client before you can join the session. Unlike previous deposit insurance seminars, you must log in to join the Live Meeting and dial into a conference call for the audio component of the presentation, including the question-and-answer period.

Registration procedures and instructions for accessing the seminar slide presentations are included in the attachment. The PowerPoint presentation is subject to change based on the adoption of any statutory, regulatory, or policy changes affecting the calculation of deposit insurance coverage.

Contact the FDIC Call Center at 877-ASK-FDIC (877-275-3342) for more information about the FDIC’s 2014 schedule of deposit insurance seminars or to request assistance with the registration process.

The FDIC looks forward to your institution’s participation in our 2014 seminar series.

Mark Pearce
Director
Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection

FTC Seeks Public Comment on Franchise Services of North America’s Application to Sell Assets Related to Simply Wheelz to Hertz and Avis Budget Group

The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comment on an application submitted by Franchise Services of North America, Inc. (FSNA) to approve the sale of 22 former Advantage Rent A Car locations, none of which are currently operating, to Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. (Hertz) and Avis Budget Group (Avis).

FSNA acquired the locations from Hertz under a 2012 FTC settlement with Hertz. The settlement required Hertz to sell its Advantage rental car business and other assets to a Commission-approved buyer to resolve charges that its proposed $2.3 billion acquisition of Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. would have been anticompetitive. Under the terms of the FTC order, for a period of three years following the entry of the order, any sale of divested assets by FSNA requires Commission approval.

On November 5, 2013, FSNA, through a subsidiary, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and sought to sell Advantage, which continued to operate during the proceedings. Following a bankruptcy auction held in December 2013, the Catalyst Group LLC was declared the winning bidder for the Advantage assets. The bankruptcy court approved Catalyst’s acquisition of Advantage, subject to FTC approval, which it obtained on January 30, 2014.

Catalyst ultimately decided to operate at 40 of the Advantage locations and to exclude the remaining 28 locations from its purchase. Those locations have been closed since Catalyst won its bid. The bankruptcy court has now approved a request by FSNA to sell 22 of these “non-transferred” locations — 10 to Hertz and 12 to Avis. Six locations remain unsold. Accordingly, FSNA is now seeking FTC approval to sell the 22 locations to Hertz and Avis, as described in the bankruptcy court order. In its application, FSNA explains that it will attempt to find purchasers for the remaining six “non-transferred” locations. FSNA’s sale of the Advantage assets has not been finalized, and it is working together with Catalyst to sell the “non-transferred” locations.

The Commission will decide whether to approve the proposed divestitures after expiration of a 30-day public comment period. Public comments may be submitted until May 19, 2014. Written comments should be sent to: FTC Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Comments can also be submitted electronically.

Copies of the application can be found on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release. (FTC File No. 131-0163, Docket No. C-4376; the staff contact is Daniel P. Ducore, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2526)

The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to antitrust{at}ftc{dot}gov, or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 601 New Jersey Ave., N.W., Room 7117, Washington, DC 20001. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read Competition Counts. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

FTC Presents Criminal Liaison Unit Award to Two San Francisco-Based Assistant U.S. Attorneys for Prosecution of Defendants Behind Fraudulent Billing Scheme

The Federal Trade Commission is honoring Assistant United States Attorneys Hallie Mitchell Hoffman and Kyle F. Waldinger with its Criminal Liaison Unit’s Prosecuting Attorney’s Award for their work in combatting consumer fraud. The Criminal Liaison Unit presents the award annually to one or more prosecuting attorneys who demonstrate an exceptional commitment to consumer protection in partnership with the FTC.

At an awards ceremony held in San Francisco on April 17, 2014, FTC Associate Director James Kohm said, “This award honors the dedication and diligence of Hallie Mitchell Hoffman and Kyle F. Waldinger in protecting American consumers. Prosecutors like them are essential in bringing the worst fraudsters to justice.”

Ms. Hoffman and Mr. Waldinger were the lead prosecutors in a case against brothers Roy Lin and John Lin and their related companies. The FTC previously took action against the Lins and their companies, alleging that they had placed tens of millions of unwanted and unauthorized charges on consumers’ telephone bill, a process known as “cramming.” The case, FTC v. INC21, resulted in a permanent injunction against the defendants, a $37.9 million judgment and the return of more than $5.4 million to consumers and businesses who were victimized by the scam.

The egregious fraudulent conduct and extensive consumer harm made it an ideal case for criminal prosecution. On March 27, 2012, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California indicted Roy Lin and John Lin on charges of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, six counts of mail fraud, and three counts of money laundering. Due to the hard work and tremendous efforts of the prosecutors, and in cooperation with the FTC, the United States Postal Inspection Service and the Internal Revenue Service, both Roy Lin and John Lin subsequently pled guilty and received sentences of 30 months and 20 months respectively for their roles.

The FTC often coordinates with criminal law enforcement to ensure the successful prosecution of fraudsters who prey on American consumers. Since its inception ten years ago, the FTC’s CLU has contributed to the successful prosecution of hundreds of fraudulent telemarketers, phantom debt and mortgage relief scammers, immigration fraudsters and others who prey on American consumers.

The Federal Trade Commission is celebrating 100 years of promoting competition and protecting consumers through law enforcement, policy and research initiatives, and consumer and business education. File a consumer complaint online or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). To inform the Bureau of Competition about questionable business practices, write to [email protected] or call 202-326-3300.

FTC Invites Further Public Comment on Mobile Security

The Federal Trade Commission is seeking comments from the public to further explore issues raised by last year’s FTC forum examining the state of mobile security. Panelists at the forum discussed a number of complex issues that warrant further public input.

Held on June 4, 2013, the FTC’s mobile security forum consisted of a day-long series of panel discussions and presentations that addressed a wide array of security issues in the mobile arena, including current and potential future threats to user privacy and security, the role that mobile platform providers can play to mitigate mobile threats and ensure the privacy and security of end-users, the unique security challenges posed by the complexity of the mobile ecosystem and the role that telecommunications companies, third-party developers, and other members of the ecosystem can play in securing consumer products and services, and the efficacy and utility of consumer-facing mobile security products, such as authentication and antivirus products.

To expand the record on these issues with an eye towards a report, the FTC invites comment from the public on the following topics:

Secure Platform Design: Commenters may interpret the term “platform” broadly to include mobile operating system providers, device manufacturers, app stores, or others that maintain two-sided markets for third-party developers and consumers. In some cases, a platform may serve several of these roles (e.g., providing a mobile operating system and an app store).

How can platforms create robust development environments while limiting the potential for abuse by privacy-infringing or malicious third-party applications? Commenters may interpret the term “application” broadly to include any mobile software (e.g., native, web-based, etc.) that has access, via a platform, to consumers’ personal information or device resources.

Have particular design approaches proven more or less effective than others in protecting consumer privacy and security?

What, if any, are the trade-offs between different approaches to providing developers with access to consumers’ personal information or device resources?

Secure Distribution Channels:

What role should platforms play in creating secure distribution channels, such as app stores, for mobile applications?

Is application review and testing scalable given the explosive growth of mobile applications? What techniques have proven effective in detecting malicious or privacy-infringing applications?

Do smaller players in the mobile ecosystem, such as third-party app stores, have the resources to deploy such techniques?

Does limiting application distribution to a single channel provide substantial security benefits? What, if any, are the trade-offs of this approach?

What are potential alternative approaches to detecting or impeding malicious or privacy-infringing applications on end-user devices?

Secure Development Practices:

What resources (e.g., application programming interfaces, development guides, testing tools, etc.) are available for third-party developers interested in secure application development?

Is the developer community taking advantage of these resources? Are they making common security mistakes?

Do consumers have the information they need to evaluate the security of an application? Are they aware of potential security risks (e.g., the insecure transmission of data)? Are there ways to make the security of applications more transparent to the end-user?

What more can platforms and other industry players do to ensure that third-party developers have the resources and incentives necessary to implement secure development practices?

Security Lifecycle and Updates:

What is the security lifecycle of a mobile device – that is, how long is a mobile device supported with respect to security? Do companies distinguish between a mobile device’s general product lifecycle and its security lifecycle? What factors – technical, policy, or business – affect the length of a mobile device’s security lifecycle?

What are consumer expectations with respect to the security lifecycle of their mobile devices? Do consumers have the appropriate information (e.g., at the time of purchase) to factor security into their device purchasing decision? Do consumers receive notice when a device has reached “end-of-life” with respect to security support?

What are the challenges in creating, testing, and distributing security updates to end-user devices? What, if any, are the implications of slow update cycles? Are there steps that platforms, manufacturers, telecommunications carriers, and other players can take to streamline this process?

Those wishing to submit responses should follow the instructions provided in the comment submission statement for this matter.

Marketer of Robocalling Services Banned from Telemarketing

The head of an operation that enabled telemarketers to make illegal robocalls, call phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, and mask Caller ID information, is permanently banned from telemarketing and robocalling under a settlement with the federal government.

In November 2011, on the Federal Trade Commission’s behalf, the Department of Justice filed a complaint alleging that Joseph Turpel sold services to telemarketers who were violating the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule. The complaint alleged that Turpel knew, or consciously avoided knowing, that clients used his services while calling numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, transmitting inaccurate caller ID information, and making illegal prerecorded telemarketing solicitations (robocalls).

According to the complaint, Turpel’s clients offered credit card services, home security systems, and grant procurement programs. He allegedly gave clients the means to hide their identity by transmitting inaccurate caller names, such as “SERVICE MESSAGE” or “SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT,” on caller ID displays.

In addition to banning Turpel from telemarketing and robocalling, the settlement order imposes a $395,000 civil penalty that is suspended based on his inability to pay. The full penalty will become due immediately if Turpel is found to have misrepresented his financial condition.

The Commission vote authorizing DOJ staff to file the proposed stipulated final order was 4-0. The final order was entered by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 15, 2014.

Statement of FTC Bureau of Competition Director Deborah Feinstein On Jostens’ Decision to Drop its Proposed Acquisition of American Achievement Corp.

Following today’s announcement by Jostens, Inc. (“Jostens”) that it will drop plans to acquire Acquisition of American Achievement Corp. (“AAC”), the Director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition, Deborah Feinstein, said:

“The parties’ abandonment of the transaction preserves competition for consumers in the markets for class rings, which are an important memento for millions of high school and college graduates across the country. A combination of two of the three leading manufacturers would have led to higher prices and lower quality for the students and their parents who purchase these rings.”

Earlier today the FTC voted to seek a preliminary injunction in federal court to stop Jostens, one of the nation’s largest sellers of high school and college class rings, from proceeding with the approximately $500 million proposed acquisition of its close rival, AAC.

The FTC charged that the proposed combination of Jostens and AAC would likely have been anticompetitive and led to higher prices and reduced service for both high school and college students who buy class rings.

The FTC also approved an administrative complaint, alleging that a combined Jostens/AAC would control an unduly high percentage of the high school and college rings markets, making it a dominant firm with only one smaller meaningful competitor in both markets. Jostens’ acquisition of AAC would have eliminated head-to-head competition between the two companies, allowing the combined firm to raise prices, while reducing the incentives to provide better quality and service to students and make it easier for the two remaining competitors to coordinate, the complaint alleged.

The Commission vote to file both the administrative complaint and federal district court complaint seeking a preliminary injunction was 4-0.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law. The cases will be decided by the court.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Deposit Insurance Coverage

Free Nationwide Seminars for Bank Officers and Employees

Printable Format:

Summary:

Highlights:

Deposit Insurance Coverage Free Nationwide Seminars for Bank Officers and Employees

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Deposit Insurance Coverage
Free Nationwide Seminars for Bank Officers and Employees