#1businessmanfilm

[bigyack-com]

Sackler Family Members Fight Removal of Name at Tufts, Calling It a ‘Breach’

There were three Sackler brothers, all of whom made gifts to Tufts, and different branches of the family have responded differently to Tufts’ decision.A third brother, Arthur, is widely credited with shaping modern medical advertising, but he died before OxyContin was introduced and his brothers purchased his stake in the company. His widow, Jillian Sackler, released a statement emphasizing that her husband had no involvement with OxyContin and saying, “It deeply saddens me to witness Arthur being blamed for actions taken by his brothers and other OxySacklers.”Michael Ward Stout, a lawyer who has worked with museums, said that an institution’s right to withdraw from a naming agreement depended on the terms of the contract. He said that when Lincoln Center in New York wanted to change the name of Avery Fisher Hall, the home of the New York Philharmonic, in order to attract a major gift for its renovation, officials paid the Fisher family $15 million for permission to drop the name. (Mr. Fisher’s original gift to support the hall, in 1973, had been $10 million.)In some cases, like that one, “You can buy yourself out of it,” he said.In 2018, the Massachusetts attorney general filed a civil complaint against eight members of the Sackler family, along with Purdue and numerous Purdue executives and directors, saying that the company had misled doctors and patients about the risks of OxyContin. In a court filing this past January, the attorney general asserted that the Sacklers and Purdue had used their relationship with Tufts to promote use of OxyContin by gaining access to local doctors and trying to influence research about pain treatment. In response to the filing, Tufts commissioned Donald K. Stern, a former United States attorney, to undertake an independent review of the university’s relationship to the Sacklers and Purdue. The review, which was released on the same day that Tufts said it would jettison the Sackler name, found that in most cases money from the Sacklers and Purdue went to programs unrelated to pain treatment and opioids; in other cases, it said, there was no evidence the donations materially skewed academic programs. Read the full article

[bigyack-com]

NCLAT restores Cyrus Mistry’s chairmanship of Tata Sons - business news

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, or NCLAT, has ruled that Cyrus Mistry’s dismissal as executive chairman of Tata Sons Ltd by the board of that company on October 24, 2016 was illegal in a comprehensive, surprising, and sweeping ruling that Tata Sons is almost certain to challenge in the Supreme Court when it reconvenes after the New Year holidays (Wednesday was the court’s last working day this year).In its ruling, NCLAT also deemed the Tata Sons transition from a public company to a private company illegal, making it easier for the Mistry family, the single largest shareholder in the holding company of India’s oldest and best-known conglomerate, to sell part of all of its 18.4% stake should it wish to. And it restored Mistry’s directorships in other companies of the Tata group.The tribunal has stayed the restoration of Mistry’s chairmanship for four weeks, to facilitate an appeal, but not some of the other key decisions.“Today’s judgment is not a personal victory for me, but a victory for the principles of good governance and minority shareholder rights,” Cyrus Mistry said in a statement. Interestingly, Mistry had not specifically asked NCLAT to restore his chairmanship and it isn’t clear whether he will press for it after four weeks (provided the Supreme Court does not stay it while hearing the Tata Sons appeal). “It is a vindication of my stand.”“It is not clear as to how the NCLAT order seeks to over-rule the decisions taken by the shareholders of Tata Sons and listed Tata operating companies at validly constituted shareholder meetings. The NCLAT order appears to even go beyond the specific reliefs sought by the appellant,” Tata Sons group general counsel Shuva Mandal said in a statement. He added that Tata Sons “strongly believes in the strength of its case and will take appropriate legal recourse”.And while the four-week breather doesn’t change anything immediately for current Tata group chairman N Chandrasekaran, the NCLAT order does throw a cloud over his appointment.The NCLAT order said that it does not want to stay its entire judgement, but that in the interests of “smooth functioning” of Tata Sons it would “suspend the part of the judgment so far as it relates to the replacement of the present Executive Chairman and reinstatement of Cyrus Pallonji Mistry as Executive Chairman”.In his statement, Mistry said: “I believe it is now time that all of us work together for sustainable growth and development of the Tata group, an institution that we all cherish.”The legal battle was circuitous. In early 2017, the National Company Law Tribunal dismissed two Mistry family firms’ case (they are the shareholders in Tata Sons) against Tata Sons over Mistry’s dismissal and alleging “oppression” of minority shareholders and “mismanagement” on the grounds that the two did not meet the requirement to file such a case.The firms approached NCLAT which, in September 2017, said it could waive the requirement and that the companies could pursue the case, which then went back to NCLT.In July 2018, NCLT ruled that there was no merit in the Mistry firms’ case. Soon after, an appeal was filed in NCLAT, which finished its hearing in July and reserved its judgement. This was finally delivered on Wednesday.The Mistry firms argued before NCLAT that the agenda of board meetings of Tata Sons had to be cleared ahead of the meetings by the nominee directors of the Tata Trusts (which control Tata Sons) and that an item could be introduced on the agenda only if these nominee directors voted in favour of it. They also pointed to the restriction on sale of shares, and said this affected the rights of minority shareholders (such as themselves).On Wednesday, shares of most listed Tata group companies fell after the order was pronounced. Read the full article

[bigyack-com]

How TV Covered the Moment of Impeachment

The impeachment debate on the floor of the House of Representatives might have been historically significant, but it took longer than expected, which meant it got in the way of two network shows that had been promoted heavily in recent weeks.At 8 p.m. on Wednesday, CBS cut away from the proceedings for the season finale of the long-running reality competition show “Survivor.” At the same time, ABC dropped its Washington feed to start airing back-to-back live recreations of the 1970s-vintage Norman Lear sitcoms “Good Times” and “All in the Family.”NBC stuck with the news, rather than its scheduled programming, which was a rerun of “Ellen’s Greatest Night of Giveaways,” starring Ellen DeGeneres. As the anchor Lester Holt led political analysts and correspondents through a discussion, House members were seen milling about in the background. With the tally inching toward the key number, which the network put at 214, NBC included occasional cutaways, with no audio at first, to President Trump speaking at a rally in Battle Creek, Mich.As the vote went through on the first article of impeachment, ABC broke into “Good Times” with a special report led by the anchor George Stephanopoulos. A banner at the top of the screen declared, “President Trump Impeached.”When the moment approached on Fox News, Tucker Carlson, almost midway through hosting his 8 p.m. program, said the president had devoted 45 seconds of his rally speech to the topic of the day. The show then cut to a clip from Battle Creek, with the president saying, “It doesn’t really feel like we’re being impeached,” to cheers.When it was all but official, Mr. Carlson’s reaction was muted. “They have the votes,” he said. “There it is, there it is, right there.”His guests included Jenna Ellis, a lawyer who called the impeachment “fully unconstitutional,” and Representative Devin Nunes of California, who compared it to “a coup attempt.”On MSNBC at the close of the vote on the second article, the anchor Brian Williams discussed with Claire McCaskill, the former Democratic senator of Missouri, the dim likelihood that the Senate would follow the House with a conviction. As the yeas mounted, Mr. Williams said: “This moment, make no mistake, is historic. We’ve crossed the threshold, making for two articles of impeachment.”On CNN, Rick Santorum, a former senator and onetime Republican presidential candidate who is a regular commentator on the channel, was talking about former President Bill Clinton, saying that the House Republicans of 1998 had been “pretty woke” to impeach him, when considering his actions in light of the #MeToo movement.The CBS anchor Norah O’Donnell interrupted “Survivor” with a special report, noting that not one Republican had voted in favor of impeachment and citing the lack of across-the-aisle agreement as evidence of the “split screen” state of America.Mr. Carlson, on Fox News, looked grim toward the end of his hour as a guest, Tom Fitton, the head of the conservative activist group Judicial Watch, was saying, “The president has been terribly abused.”At 9 p.m., CBS returned to “Survivor.” On ABC, the actor Woody Harrelson, with an accent that sounded as if it had originated a thousand miles from Queens, N.Y., was playing Archie Bunker in the “All in the Family” reboot. And on Fox News, Sean Hannity kicked off his highly rated show by calling the impeachment a “repulsive, dangerous political stunt” and a “revolting charade.” Read the full article

[bigyack-com]

Former top BOJ economist warns about Japan’s recession - business news

Japan’s economy may already be in mild recession and will rebound only modestly next year, forcing the central bank to maintain its huge stimulus despite the rising costs, former Bank of Japan executive Hideo Hayakawa said on Wednesday.Given its dwindling ammunition, the BOJ is likely to hold off on expanding stimulus unless an external or market shock deals a more severe blow to the economy, said Hayakawa, who retains close contact with incumbent central bank policymakers.Prolonged economic stagnation, however, will also prevent the central bank from normalising crisis-mode policies any time soon, he said.“With inflation very distant from the BOJ’s 2% target, the BOJ won’t be able to dial back stimulus any time soon,” Hayakawa said.“The best it can probably do is to ‘stealth’ normalise,” or to continue quietly tapering asset purchases, he told Reuters.The BOJ is set to keep policy steady on Thursday, as signs of progress in U.S.-China trade talks take some pressure off the central bank to tap its depleted policy tool-kit.Japan’s economy grew by an annualised 1.8% in the third quarter, marking the fourth straight quarter of expansion, gross domestic product (GDP) data showed.But the strong GDP figure contradicts other data painting a weaker picture of the economy, such as slumping exports and output blamed on slow global demand, said Hayakawa, now a senior economist at private think tank Fujitsu Research Institute.While Japan’s economy is expected to rebound next year, any pick-up will be modest as lingering overseas uncertainties and slow wage growth weigh on exports and consumption, he said.Capital expenditure is also unlikely to strengthen much as many firms already spent years ramping up spending, he added.“It’s quite clear Japan is already in mild recession,” said Hayakawa, a former top BOJ economist. “The economy will rebound sometime in the first half of next year, but in such a small way that very few in the public would feel it.”While the United States and China move toward de-escalating their bitter trade war, slumping global manufacturing activity has already taken a toll on Japan’s export-reliant economy, the world’s third largest.Factory output posted its largest fall in two years in October and big manufacturers’ business sentiment sank to a near seven-year low in the fourth quarter. Exports also slipped for a 12th straight month in November.Many analysts expect the economy to contract in the current quarter as a sales tax hike in October cools consumption. Read the full article