Markets Wired - Page 1233 of 1415 - Global Financial Market News and Press Releases

Commission Announces Agenda for Roundtable on Follow-on Biologic Drugs

The Federal Trade Commission has announced the agenda for the upcoming public roundtable on “Follow-on Biologic Drugs: Framework for Competition and Continued Innovation.” The roundtable will be held in Room 432 at FTC Headquarters in Washington, DC, on November 21, 2008.

FTC Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour will provide welcoming remarks to open the roundtable at 8:30 a.m. These remarks will be followed by opening remarks by Rachel Behrman of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at 8:45 a.m. on the subject of “How Do Biologic Drugs Differ from Small Molecule Drugs?”

The FTC will conduct the workshop as a moderated roundtable discussion organized into five panels that will discuss the following issues: the price and market share effect of entry by both biosimilar and biogeneric drugs, the likely competitive effects of reference product regulatory exclusivity, biotechnology patent issues, the likely competitive effects of follow-on biologic regulatory incentives, and the patent resolution process. The agenda and more information about the workshop are at: http://www.ftc.gov/bc/workshops/hcbio/index.shtml.

In addition, any interested person may submit written comments to any of the topics addressed during the workshops. Comments directed at a particular subject considered during the roundtable must be received no later than December 22, 2008.

The FTC’s Roundtable on Follow-on Biologic Drugs is free and open to the public. No pre-registration is required, but all attendees must present a valid photo ID for admission to
the Headquarters building, which is located at 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC.

The workshop will be accessible to people with disabilities. Anyone needing a related accommodation should contact Carrie McGlothlin at the FTC at 202-326-3388 or [email protected]. Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodations needed and contact information if more information is needed. Please provide advance notice of accommodation needs.

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 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

(Biologics Workshop.final.wpd)

FTC Issues Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) for Fiscal Year 2008

For Your Information

November 18, 2008

The Commission has issued its Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR). In accordance with the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, the PAR combines the agency’s Performance Report, financial statements, and audit opinion. The PAR compares and evaluates actual performance against established measures and targets set forth in the FTC’s 2006 to 2011 Strategic Plan (www.ftc.gov/strategicplan) and the annual Performance Plan required under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. The FY 2008 independent financial audit resulted in the FTC’s twelfth consecutive unqualified opinion, the highest audit opinion available.

The PAR begins with a “Message from the Chairman” and includes three parts: Part I contains management’s discussion and analysis of the FTC’s performance and financial activities, including the agency’s Mission Challenges; Part II contains the Performance Report; and Part III contains the agency’s financial statements and independent audit results. The PAR can be viewed at www.ftc.gov/par. For additional information, the staff contact is James Baker 202-326-3168. The Commission vote to release the Performance and Mission Challenges sections of the PAR was 4-0. (FTC File No. P080100.)

(FYI 56.2008.wpd)

Contact Information

MEDIA CONTACT:

Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2161

FTC Issues Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) for Fiscal Year 2008

For Your Information

November 18, 2008

(FYI 56.2008.wpd)

Contact Information

MEDIA CONTACT:

Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2161

Commission Issues 2008 Report on U.S. Ethanol Market Concentration

The Commission has issued the report, “2008 Report on Ethanol Market Concentration.” This is the Commission’s fourth annual report on the state of ethanol production in the United States, as required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The report concludes that the U.S. fuel ethanol market, measured on the basis of production or capacity, remains unconcentrated.

As of September 2008, 160 firms produced ethanol in the United States – a one-year increase of 57 firms. The largest ethanol producer’s share of capacity has continued to fall each year as new firms have entered the market and existing firms have added capacity. Currently, the largest producer accounts for approximately 11 percent of domestic ethanol capacity, down from 16 percent in 2007, 21 percent in 2006, 26 percent in 2005, and 41 percent in 2000.

FTC staff used three different methods to calculate concentration of the ethanol production industry. Specifically, staff calculated concentration based on the production capacity of each individual producer, on the production capacity of each producer when attributing that producer’s capacity to the firm responsible for marketing the producer’s ethanol, and on actual production rather than capacity. The report concludes that the level of concentration in ethanol production would not justify a presumption that a single firm, or a small group of firms, could wield sufficient market power to set or coordinate price or output levels. In addition, the ease of entry by new firms and the availability of ethanol imports provide additional constraints on current market participants.

The report, which is available on the Commission’s Web site and as a link to this press release, was submitted to Congress and the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as required by Section 1501(a)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as codified at 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(10). The Commission vote to issue the 2008 report, which was prepared by the staff of the Bureaus of Competition and Economics, was 4-0. (FTC File No. P063000; the staff contact is John H. Seesel, Associate General Counsel for Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 202-326-2702.)

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

(FYI 55.2.2008.wpd)

Court Orders Halt to Sale of Spyware

At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a U.S. District Court has issued a temporary restraining order halting the sale of keylogger spyware. According to the FTC’s complaint, the Florida-based CyberSpy Software, LLC marketed and sold RemoteSpy keylogger spyware to clients who would then secretly monitor unsuspecting consumers’ computers. The FTC seeks to permanently bar the unfair and deceptive practices and require the defendants to give up their ill-gotten gains.

According to papers filed with the court, the defendants provided RemoteSpy clients with detailed instructions explaining how to disguise the spyware as an innocuous file, such as a photo, attached to an email. When consumer victims clicked on the disguised file, the keylogger spyware silently installed in the background without the victims’ knowledge. This spyware recorded every keystroke typed on the victim’s computer (including passwords); captured images of the computer screen; and recorded Web sites visited. To access the information gathered and organized by the spyware, RemoteSpy clients would log into a Web site maintained by the defendants.

Defendants touted RemoteSpy as a “100% undetectable” way to “Spy on Anyone. From Anywhere.” According to the FTC complaint, the defendants violated the FTC Act by engaging in the unfair advertising and selling of software that could be: (1) deployed remotely by someone other than the owner or authorized user of a computer; (2) installed without the knowledge and consent of the owner or authorized user; and (3) used to surreptitiously collect and disclose personal information. The FTC complaint also alleges that the defendants unfairly collected and stored the personal information gathered by their spyware on their own servers and disclosed it to their clients. The complaint further alleges that the defendants provided their clients with the means and instrumentalities to unfairly deploy and install keylogger spyware and to deceive consumer victims into downloading the spyware.

On November 5, 2008, the FTC filed its complaint and requested a temporary restraining order against the defendants from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. Under the terms of the order approved by the court, in addition to halting the sale of their RemoteSpy software, the defendants must disconnect from the Internet any of their servers that collect, store, or provide access to information that this software has gathered.

The complaint also names Tracer R. Spence – the registered agent and manager of the
Orlando, Florida-based CyberSpy Software – as liable and culpable for the charges made in this case. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and request a temporary restraining order was 4-0.

A complaint filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”) brought the RemoteSpy software to the FTC’s attention.

An update on this litigation can be found at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/11/cyberspynr.shtm

NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of 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. A complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law.

(FTC File No. 0823160)

FTC Informs Linde AG That It May Retain Its Northern and Southern California Helium Transfills

The Commission has informed Linde AG that it may retain its Richmond and City of Industry, California, helium transfills. The FTC’s order in this matter, issued on August 29, 2006, requires Linde to divest these helium transfill stations to Taiyo Nippon Sanso Corporation (TNSC) unless TNSC builds its own helium transfills in California within the time provided.

The monitor appointed by the Commission to oversee Linde’s obligations has certified that TNSC has completed new helium transfill stations in Irwindale and Newark, California, that meet the criteria set forth in the Order. Accordingly, the Commission has notified Linde that it may retain its California helium transfills.

The Commission vote approving notifying Linde that it may retain the Richmond and City of Industry, California, helium transfills was 4-0. (FTC Docket No. C-4163; the staff contact is Roberta S. Baruch, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2861; see press releases dated July 18, September 5, and December 1, 2006; March 9, 2007; and September 12, 2008.)

Commission Approves Final Consent Order with Huntsman Corporation and Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc.

– Following a public comment period, the Commission has approved a final consent order with Huntsman Corporation and Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. The vote approving the final order was 4-0. (FTC File No. 071-0212; the staff contact is Wallace W. Easterling, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2936; see press release dated October 2, 2008, at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/10/hexion.shtm).

(FYI 55.2008.wpd)

FTC Informs Linde AG That It May Retain Its Northern and Southern California Helium Transfills

Commission Approves Final Consent Order with Huntsman Corporation and Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc.

(FYI 55.2008.wpd)

FTC Charges Internet Payday Lenders with Failing to Disclose Key Loan Terms and Using Abusive and Deceptive Collection Tactics

The Federal Trade Commission and the State of Nevada have charged 10 related Internet payday lenders and their principals, based mainly in the United Kingdom, with violating federal and state law by not disclosing key loan terms to U.S. consumers and using abusive and deceptive collection tactics.

According to the complaint filed by the FTC and the State of Nevada, through Web sites such as www.cash2day4u.com, the defendants offered consumers loans of $500 or less within 24 hours without requiring a credit check, proof of income, or documentation. Consumers who applied for a loan on the defendants’ Web site were required to provide their bank account and Social Security numbers.

As stated in the complaint, the defendants’ representatives called applicants and told them that they qualified for a loan, typically around $200, that had to be repaid by their next payday with a fee ranging from $35 to $80. They explained that if the loan was not repaid by then, it would be extended automatically for an extra fee that would be debited from the consumer’s bank account “until the loan is repaid.” Consumers were required to give the defendants access to their accounts for payment of the fees. Some consumers were told to call the defendants before their payday to ask them to debit the full loan amount from their accounts.

The complaint states that the defendants did not disclose key loan terms in writing, including the annual percentage rate, the payment schedule, the amount financed, the total number of payments, and any late payment fees. Consumers who asked for written disclosures were told that the transaction was oral only. According to the complaint, the defendants told consumers that they would send written disclosures after the phone call, but consumers never received them. After paying the defendants – sometimes hundreds of dollars above the loan amounts – many consumers concluded that they had more than repaid their loans and terminated the defendants’ access to their bank accounts, often by closing the accounts. Many consumers then received abusive and deceptive collection calls from the defendants aimed at regaining access to their accounts.

According to the complaint, the defendants falsely claimed that consumers were legally obligated to repay the loans, even though the loans did not comply with payday lending laws in many consumers’ states and the defendants were not licensed to make consumer loans in thosestates. The defendants falsely threatened consumers with arrest, lawsuits, property seizure, or wage garnishment, and repeatedly called consumers, coworkers, and employers at their workplace, using abusive language and disclosing consumers’ purported debts.

The corporate defendants are Cash Today, Ltd., The Heathmill Village, Ltd., Leads Global, Inc., Waterfront Investments, Inc., ACH Cash, Inc., HBS Services, Inc., Lotus Leads, Inc., First4Leads, Inc., Rovinge International, Inc., and The Harris Holdings, Ltd., each also doing business as Cash Today, Route 66 Funding, Global Financial Services International, Ltd., Interim Cash, Ltd., and BIG-INT, Ltd. The individual defendants are Aaron Gershfield, Ivor Gershfield, and Jim Harris.

The defendants are charged with violating the FTC Act by using unfair and deceptive collection tactics, including falsely threatening consumers with arrest or imprisonment, falsely claiming that consumers are legally obligated to pay the debts; making false threats to take legal action that they cannot take; and repeatedly calling consumers at work and using abusive and profane language and disclosing consumers’ purported debts to coworkers, employers, and other third parties.

The defendants are also charged with violating the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z by failing to make required written disclosures, clearly and conspicuously, before consummating a consumer credit transaction, including the amount financed, itemization of the amount financed, the finance charge, the annual percentage rate, the payment schedule, the total number of payments, and any late payment fees. In addition, they are charged with violating Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Act by not disclosing loan terms, making false representations in collecting debts, and selling loans to consumers without licenses.

The Commission vote to approve the complaint was 4-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

NOTE: The Commission issues 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. These complaints are not a finding or ruling that the respondents have actually violated the law. The consent agreements are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute admissions by the respondents of a law violation.

(FTC File No. 0723093)
(Cash Today)

Court Prohibits Finance Company From Unfair and Deceptive Collection Tactics

Under the terms of a federal court order announced by the Federal Trade Commission today, a finance company that the Commission charged with unfairly collecting on equipment leasing contracts and misrepresenting consumers’ obligations to pay cannot engage in similar conduct in the future. The order settling the Commission’s charges against IFC Credit Corporation prohibits the company from collecting on a finance contract when, based on the information IFC has at the time it acquires the contract, a reasonable businessperson in the finance industry would conclude that the consumer was deceived into agreeing to the transaction.

According to the FTC’s complaint, IFC was one of a group of finance companies that helped finance a telecommunications scheme perpetrated by the now-defunct Norvergence. Under the scheme, NorVergence claimed it would provide substantial telecom savings for small business and nonprofit consumers by installing a “Matrix box” on consumers’ premises. The FTC alleged, however, that the Matrix box, which NorVergence rented to customers for inflated prices of between $200 and $2,500 per month for up to five years, was nothing more than a standard telecom router that had little or nothing to do with reducing telecom costs.

According to the complaint, however, NorVergence had no long-term contracts with telecommunications providers and thus no way to assure the long-term savings it promised. Instead, it immediately sold the Matrix rental contracts to finance companies, including IFC, for quick cash. The scheme collapsed when NorVergence became unable to provide telecom services or pay its suppliers because it was charging consumers less than the services cost and it had spent all the money it received from selling the contracts to finance companies. The FTC sued NorVergence in 2004, and obtained a $181 million default judgment in mid-2005. IFC allegedly violated the FTC Act by using unfair and deceptive tactics in its attempts to collect from defrauded consumers the full amounts owed under the contracts when the consumers were no longer receiving the promised services.

The FTC order settles the Commission’s complaint against IFC and covers the types of transactions at issue in the case, i.e., finance contracts requiring payments of up to $250,000 that are commonly entered into by small businesses, nonprofits, and individual consumers. The largest NorVergence rental agreements IFC acquired called for payments of $160,000.

Specifically, the order prohibits IFC from representing: 1) that consumers have waived any defenses, or are precluded from asserting any defenses or counterclaims, to IFC’s collection on any finance contract; or 2) that consumers are obligated to pay IFC under any other liability theory, including, but not limited to, fraud or misrepresentation. The order further prohibits IFC from collecting on a finance contract if – based on the information IFC had when it acquired the contract – a reasonable businessperson in the finance industry would conclude that: 1) the contract materially misstated the consideration the customer would receive; or 2) the contract was procured by deception.

Finally, the order contains standard record-keeping and reporting requirements to ensure the defendant complies with its terms.

The FTC’s settlement with IFC was reached in conjunction with agreements between IFC and a multi-state group of attorneys general. That group includes Illinois, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Texas. Under those agreements, IFC’s NorVergence customers will have an opportunity to enter into settlements with IFC, under which the company will eliminate a substantial portion of what the consumers owe under the contracts. The Commission gratefully acknowledges the valuable assistance of the attorneys general of those and other states in conducting the investigation, bringing the action, and settling the case.

The Commission vote authorizing the filing of the stipulated final order in settlement of the court action was 4-0. The order was filed on November 3, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and entered by the Court on November 5, 2008.

NOTE: This stipulated final order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. A stipulated final order requires approval by the court and has the force of law when signed by the judge.

Copies of the stipulated final order are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. 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 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

(FTC File No. X070033; Civ. No. 07-cv-3155)
(IFC Credit.final.wpd)

FTC Submits Report to Congress on Do Not Call Improvement Act of 2007

The Commission has approved the Report to Congress Under the Do Not Call Improvement Act of 2007 (2007 DNCIA), signed into law on February 15, 2008. The report, which is mandated under the 2007 DNCIA, contains information on the Commission’s efforts to improve the accuracy of the National Do Not Call Registry. The report details the efforts that the FTC has taken in the nine months since the 2007 DNCIA was signed into law and describes the new procedure that will be used to remove disconnected and reassigned numbers from the National Registry.

The report begins by explaining the goals of the 2007 DNCIA and how the Commission has met those objectives. Next, it describes the operation of the National Registry since its implementation in 2003, with an emphasis the FTC’s continuing work to maintain a balance between its ease of use and its accuracy. The report continues by discussing the tests conducted to evaluate the accuracy of the National Registry. Finally, the report details the new
procedure put in place to maintain the accuracy of the National Registry, which purges numbers from the National Registry only when there is a high degree of confidence that the telephone number has been disconnected and reassigned to a new customer.

The Commission vote to issue the report was 4-0. The report is available on the FTC’s Web site and as a link to this press release. (FTC File No. P034305; the staff contact is Kelly A. Horne, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-3031.)

(FYI 53.2008.wpd)

Related posts:

Contact Information

Related posts:

Contact Information

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: