After shock resignation from Berkshire Hathaway empire, David Sokol says he did nothing wrong in buying stake in Lubrizol oil company David Sokol, once seen as the favoured successor to Warren Buffett, has rejected claims of insider trading and defended his purchase of shares in a company shortly before it was bought by the billionaire. Speaking for the first time since his shock resignation from the Berkshire Hathaway empire was announced on Wednesday night, Sokol insisted he had behaved legally and honourably. Sokol told CNBC he had no influence over which companies Buffett invested in and that his decision to quit Berkshire was unrelated to his stake in Lubrizol. “I don’t believe I did anything wrong,” Sokol told CNBC. “I made an investment that I believed in. If I didn’t believe in the company, I wouldn’t have invested in it.” Sokol told CNBC he had been contacted by bankers from Citigroup on 13 December last year. They suggested a number of potential acquisition targets including Lubrizol. Sokol concluded that Lubrizol was the most attractive and asked the bankers to set up a meeting between himself and chief executive James Hambrick. Sokol then attempted to buy 50,000 shares in the company, but only managed to acquire 2,300 which he sold shortly afterwards. In early January, he bought another 96,000 shares at about $104 (£65) each. According to Buffett , Sokol suggested buying Lubrizol on 14 or 15 January. The $9.7bn deal was announced on 14 March after Berkshire’s $135-per-share offer was accepted, giving Sokol a paper profit of almost $3m. Sokol acknowledged the Lubrizol stake did raise questions. “I can understand the appearance issue and that’s why we decided to make it public.” he said. The stake would eventually have been revealed under regulatory filings. During the TV interview, which was eagerly watched on Wall Street and in the City, Sokol explained he had no influence over whether Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway would decide to bid for a company. “I don’t think there was any impropriety,” he insisted. “I didn’t have any inside information.” “The reality is that I didn’t think there was a 5% chance of Warren being interested in the company.” Sokol, who chaired several Berkshire subsidiaries, including the corporate airline, NetJets, said he had not been contacted by the Securities Exchange Commission over his share dealings. He also told CNBC that Charlie Munger, another of Buffett’s top lieutenants, had owned 3% of Chinese carmaker BYD before asking Sokol to examine teaming up with it. Berkshire bought 10% of BYD in September 2008 . Questioned about the timing of the move, Sokol said the team at NetJets could run the airline without him and that, by departing now, it would help the usual discussions about Buffett’s succession at Berkshire’s annual meeting at the end of April. Looking ahead, Sokol said he was keen to set up and run his own fund. He was also ebullient in his praise for the company he is leaving behind. “No disrespect to Warren or Berkshire – frankly, I love both of them,” he said. Sokol was also sufficiently relaxed to conclude the interview by wishing his granddaughter Lucy a happy birthday. Warren Buffett Investing Financial sector US economy Economics United States Graeme Wearden guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Select committee also says MPs who believe they are victims of phone hacking should pursue the matter in court A powerful committee of MPs said on Thursday that hacking mobile phones belonging to members of the House of Commons could amount to contempt of parliament. A report on phone hacking published by the select committee on standards and privileges concluded hacking could be in contempt, “if it can be shown to have interfered with the work of the house or to have impeded or obstructed an MP from taking part in such work”. That might result in fines being levied in exceptional circumstances, MPs said. The committee added that in the vast majority of cases MPs who believe they have been victims of phone hacking should pursue the matter through the courts. Former culture secretary Tessa Jowell is one of more than half a dozen public figures who are suing either the Metropolitan police or the News of the World for breach of privacy, alleging journalists on the paper worked with a private investigator to illegally access their mobile phone messages. Chris Bryant, the Labour MP for Rhondda, has said “at least eight” MPs had their mobile phone voicemails hacked by the paper. MPs passed a motion tabled by Bryant in September asking the cross-party committee to urgently consider whether hacking could be considered to be in contempt of parliament. In their report, MPs said it was not within the committee’s remit to consider the law surrounding hacking, which is currently the subject of a separate inquiry being carried out by the home affairs select committee. But it said that if it was proved that hacking “impede[d] a member in the performance of his or her duty … there would be little if any room for doubt that hacking could be a contempt”. It added that the house did not have the power or resources to investigate hacking and that this was a matter for the police. Members should notify the police if they suspected an offence had taken place, it said. MPs recommended that a privileges bill due to go through parliament later this year should include a description of what constitutes contempt, which is currently not clearly defined. The committee also said parliament’s power of imprisonment should be removed in the bill but it should retain the right to reprimand offenders in person and levy fines. “The imposition of a fine, where justified by the facts and by the circumstances, is more consistent with modern practice and would be more likely to be proportionate to an offence such as hacking”. • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”. • To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook Phone hacking Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers News of the World News International Tessa Jowell House of Commons House of Lords James Robinson guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Ten sailors were injured yesterday when a jet engine burst into flames on an aircraft carrier off San Diego. Four men were airlifted to a Navy medical center and the rest were treated on the USS John C. Stennis. None of the injuries was life threatening. Officials are investigating the…
Continue reading …Break Out The Tiny Violins: WI Rep Eager To Cut State Employee Salaries Says "It’s A Struggle" To Make It on $174K A Year
March 31, 2011 No Comment
enlarge If the parents of this quaint picture seem vaguely familiar to you, you probably watched a lot of MTV 15-20 years ago. Sean Duffy and Rachel Campos-Duffy were both participants in different seasons of “The Real World” (Sean in Boston in the sixth season, Rachel in San Francisco in the third). They met during the filming of “Real World Road Rules” in 1998 and married in 1999. Between raising six children, Rachel has done some television work and contributes to parenting websites. Sean was appointed District Attorney in Wisconsin and in 2010, was elected to his first term in the House of Representatives for Wisconsin’s 7th District in 2010. Behind the meet-cute back story, the shining American success story and whatever-you-want-to-call-having-so-damn-many-kids story, there is of course the darker shades of conservative Republicanism. Duffy has been quite outspoken, supporting his fellow Republicans in the state, calling for public employees to take paycuts to help the state meet their fiscal needs of giving millionaires and corporations more tax cuts. But do you think that he too should show his commitment to fiscal responsibility and take a pay cut himself? Silly liberal expecting consistency : At a town hall meeting in Polk County, Wisconsin earlier this year, Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) was asked whether he’d vote to cut his $174,000 annual salary. Duffy sort of hedged, and went on to talk about how $174,000 really isn’t that much for his family of seven (sic–Duffy has a family of 8) to live on. Then he went on to say he supports cutting compensation for all public employees, along the lines of what Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has proposed for the Badger State. Cuts for thee, but not for me, unless I really have to? How very Republican. Like all House members, Duffy makes $174,000 in taxpayer-funded salary every year. The Speaker makes a lot more ($223,500) and the party leaders and president pro tempore of the Senate make a bit more ($193,400.) All of them make way more than most people in Polk County, Wisconsin do. The median household income there was $50,520 in 2008, according to Census data . Whether or not Duffy is rich is a matter for debate. But that’s apparently not a debate the Polk County GOP wanted to have, at least not on the wider Internet. Here’s a screenshot of what the page containing the video looked like on Monday . Today, the video is gone . Of course, Duffy’s spokesperson, perhaps realizing damage control was in order, started criticizing “partisan shots” at Duffy. You know, because facts have a liberal bias.
Continue reading …Ed Schultz Fights With Far-Left ‘Nation’ Reporter Who’s Against Arming Libyan Rebels
March 31, 2011 No Comment
It was revealed Wednesday evening that the Obama administration sent clandestine CIA operatives to Libya weeks ago to assist rebels in their civil war against Moammar Gaddafi. Not only did MSNBC's Ed Schultz express his support for this action as well as arming these rebels, he also got into a heated argument with a Nation magazine reporter that compared this operation to the “disastrous dirty wars of the 1980s” bringing up images of Ollie North and the Iran-Contra scandal (video follows with transcript and commentary): ED SCHULTZ, HOST: But, this is the story we start with, that has me fired up tonight. It wasn’t supposed to go like this, but this is how it’s unfolding. “Reuters” reporting there are American boots on the ground in Libya. “President Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces in Libya, officials tell Reuters.” The order was signed within the past two or three weeks. Tonight, “The New York Times” is reporting the Central Intelligence Agency has inserted clandestine operatives into Libya to gather intelligence for military airstrikes and make contacts with rebels battling Gadhafi’s forces, according to American officials. And the “National Journal” reporting more than a dozen CIA operatives were sent to Libya. You would think this announcement would quickly change the mind of a devout antiwar liberal like Schultz despite his having sycophantically and hypocritically expressed support for this Libyan operation right from the start. Well, think again: SCHULTZ: When the president announced the United States military engagement in Libya, he was emphatic. There would be no troops, no boots on the ground. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA,PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will not — I repeat — we will not deploy any U.S. troops on the ground. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: In fact, U.N. resolution 1973 excludes, quote, “a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.” Of any form? What’s that mean? NBC sources are telling NBC that the revelation of CIA operatives in Libya is pro forma. Still, the White House knows this kind of revelation — this kind of headline could change the dynamic on the ground in Libya, and support for the president at home could also shift. Indeed, as well as support from his friends in the media that have been for this war. At least, that's what you would think: SCHULTZ: The big question tonight that remains: will the United States or its allies arm these Libyan freedom fighters? “Reuters” also reports today U.S. officials have said that Saudi Arabia and Qatar, whose leaders despise Gadhafi, have indicated a willingness to supply Libyan rebels — I call them freedom fighters — with weapons. Now, remember yesterday, the president told Brian Williams that the operation of arming Libyan rebels wasn’t off the table. He also said the following to ABC News. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: It’s fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could. We’re looking at all our options at this point. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Senior European diplomat says the coalition of nations involved in Libya, considered arming rebels a serious option and that the coalition is considering that option now. Reports from the front lines are that anti-Gadhafi forces, they are in retreat. It was not a good day for them. And they are poorly armed. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: The momentum has changed very quickly in this war. And on the front line, Libya’s revolution is being held together with sticky tape. Show me what you’re armed with. What’s your weapon? Only that? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Only that. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: So, we have stopped Gadhafi from slaughtering his people in Benghazi. Our airstrikes have allowed the rebels to advance. But now, they’re retreating. After all that, does the world community stand by and watch the freedom fighters get crushed? The president pledged that there would be no U.S. troops on the ground in Libya. Today, we learned that CIA operatives are on the ground. What does that all mean? Still, it looks like the freedom fighters’ only shot for survival at this point is a real injection of military hardware that they say they desperately need. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today said that there was still no decision on arming the rebels. Nobody wants another situation like the mujahideen in Afghanistan in 1980s. Whether or not we arm rebels, freedom fighters, whatever you want to call them, is a very hard decision. But I think we have to do it. It is a moral decision at this point. Imagine that. Despite what resulted from arming the mujahideen in Afghanistan – Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda – Schultz is all for doing it AGAIN! This seems especially absurd given reports that al Qaeda is already present amongst the Libyan rebels. But none of that matters to Schultz. His President is for this, and regardless of how he opposes this kind of conflict with every fabric of his being, this MSNBC shill is all in: SCHULTZ: You just saw that piece of videotape, that young kid, we have a state in the United States of America, New Hampshire, live free or die. What do you think that Libyan freedom fighter wants? What is his choice? He’s made what’s on the license plates in New Hampshire, live free or die. That’s where he is. And where does the United States stand tonight? Look, I am a liberal. I am a progressive. But that means that we need to stand behind people who want freedom. This isn’t Bush talk. This is totally different from Iraq. It’s totally different from any other situation in my opinion. This is a situation where we have got a coalition that has come together and realized that Gadhafi is a terrorist. The president has gone on record saying that Libyan agents have killed Americans. That’s all as an American I need to hear. This president has also gone on record that he was going to get America out of Iraq, close the terrorist center in Guantanamo Bay, and end secret CIA renditions. Despite him having gone back on all three pledges, Schultz is still taking him at his word: SCHULTZ: Let’s get it done. Let’s arm these rebels. Let’s give them a chance to fight. At least if they’re going to die, they’re going to have some hardware in their hands to defend themselves. There was a sound bite in Richard Engel’s piece last night, a gentleman says they’re pulling women out of houses. They’re lining people up and assassinating them. They’ve got shooters up on top of the roofs to picking people off. I mean, come on, America. When do we fight? Does it have to be absolutely perfect and we have to have an absolute end game, and, you know, dot all the I’s and cross all the T’s? Hell no. This is about freedom, is it not? This is about people who want to get rid of a dictator — a guy who has brutalized them for 40 years and we stand here tonight as if we’re not free. We stand here tonight as if — well, I don’t know about this, I don’t know about that. The military equation here I understand is very, very complicated. They not trained freedom fighters. But they have in their heart, they have in their soul the same things, and the same qualities and the same spirit that the people who founded this country had in their hearts and their minds centuries ago. How does he know that? Exactly how does anyone at this point know who or what these rebels are? Quite the contrary, we don't know. But Schultz's president is for this, and therefore, so is he: SCHULTZ: Look, this is a tough call. There’s no doubt. It’s a tough call for not only the president, and for people who support the president, who really have had enough of war. We don’t have a stomach for this, I know that. Just listen to the people on talk radio across America. They’re using this as a tool to take down our president, because they politically hate him. They have made it their goal over on the right to make sure that President Obama does not get reelected. So they’re playing the political games with the lives and the heart and the spirit and the soul of the Libyan people who all they want is a fighting chance to take down a dictator who has killed Americans. Liberals, we are better than this. Give them a chance. Arm them. That section there tells it all. Schultz must clearly think that if this mission in Libya fails, Obama's public support will plummet and with it his reelection chances. As such, he's willing to publicly and aggressively support an operation that he would otherwise be totally against simply because he believes it will help his president retain office. It's really quite disturbing when you think about it that way, for Schultz is pointing fingers at conservatives for “playing the political games with the lives and the heart and the spirit and the soul of the Libyan people.” But isn't it him playing political games with the lives of Americans that will be needed to assist these rebels?
Continue reading …A 17-year-old soccer fan in Colombia didn’t let death stop him from missing the big game. As police opened the gates near the end of a match between Cucita Deportivo and Envigado to let fans out, hundreds rushed in , bearing the teen’s coffin, reports the Independent . Police were taken completely…
Continue reading …
Committee’s focus on forests sell-off allows environment secretary to avoid difficult questions on flood defence spending After nearly an hour of her grilling by MPs had gone by without a question on forests, Caroline Spelman might have hoped she was going to get away with it. No such luck. After a brief break for the MPs to vote on the police reform bill, the onslaught began in earnest. Spelman was at the environment, food and rural affairs committee on Wednesday, being interviewed as part of its report on last year’s comprehensive spending review. This committee is better known for questions about dead sheep than for savaging ministers. So an easy lob from Tom Blenkinsop, the Labour member for Middlesborough South and East Cleveland, gave Spelman an ideal opportunity. What, he asked, were the main achievements of her tenure so far? After reeling off her many triumphs (talking to trade unions, dealing with arms-length bodies, safeguarding spending on canals) Spelman eventually made it to the B-minus section of her report form. Forests. “Of course,” the secretary of state began: “I could not talk about last year without touching on the experiences with regard to forestry, which were very difficult, as I’m sure you saw, Mr Blenkinsop.” This “difficult experience” was, we should recall, the most humiliating climbdown of the coalition government’s first year. Floating the idea of a sell-off of the entire national forest estate last year , the coalition was stunned by the extraordinarily broad range of voters who protested against it. Tory knights of the shires roused themselves, ramblers combined with online bloggers, and the National Trust found common cause with the Socialist Workers’ party to stop the government in its tracks. Half a million people signed a petition to protest against the plan. Finally, in February, after repeated insistence that the government would not be deflected from its course, David Cameron sent Spelman into the House of Commons chamber to apologise to MPs and the country for her mistake. But, as Spelman recounted, all of the fuss was perfectly smoothed over by the unusual appearance of a secretary of state in the House of Commons to say sorry . (Not that she repeated that word, of course.) We were swiftly hurried on from that “difficult experience” to a paean of thanks to her civil servants. Ministers, we heard, had been “very pleasantly surprised” at how wonderfully they had been assisted by the officials who are paid to assist them. “All this has resulted in a very good working relationship with civil servants,” Spelman told the MPs. Who’d have thought it. The lengthy and fulsome praise was a clear attempt to scotch persistent rumours that Spelman has not enjoyed the most supportive of relations with her officials, who were said during the forestry debacle to be miffed both at her refusal to seek or take their advice, and by her repeated assertions that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) was a “flabby” department with too many people in it. Telling your staff that they are useless is not a technique that features in many management handbooks. Spelman also made a curious assertion – answering a question as to whether she had sought the opinions of “stakeholders” such as the National Trust ahead of pursuing the sell-off, she said firmly that she had, and that she spoke to all “stakeholders” constantly. This is very strange – Fiona Reynolds, director general of the National Trust, categorically denies that Spelman ever spoke to her about the policy before it was announced. She found out about the policy through the media. But the MPs failed to pursue the point, though Spelman’s repeated mea culpa did not get the minister off the hook entirely. Questioned again on why she wanted to sell off the forests, Spelman insisted that every government for the last 30 years had been quietly selling off forestry land (true), and all she wanted was to make the process more transparent. And the only reason people took against this admirable aim was because those awful people in the media had created a “mythology” about the forests. All this took some time. Which meant that, after a few more questions on subsidy payments to farmers (delayed, for many) and how the government could buy more British food products, there was very little time for anything else. At 5pm, after two hours of such “grilling”, the chairwoman Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Thirsk and Malton) asked for briefer questions and answers. But the minister had other plans – she thought the time was up. After some haggling, we got 10 more minutes. And at last someone – in this case Amber Rudd, the new Conservative MP for Hastings and Rye (in the marshes) – asked the real question. About 145,000 homes would be better protected from flooding under Spelman’s plans. But what about the many thousands of other homes and businesses that would not receive the new or upgraded defences that had been planned ? This is a crucial point. Despite repeated assurances from Cameron that flood defence spending would be “protected”, Defra’s budget cuts mean that hundreds of flood defence schemes will no longer go ahead. These include some huge measures – the city of Leeds, for instance, threatened several times in recent years with major floods that would disable its business district and affect thousands of homes, is to be left without flood defences because the budget for its £100m planned defence project has been cut. The same is true for flood defence schemes across the country, spelling a potential disaster for thousands of homes and businesses. Spelman sailed blithely through. Private sector funding would fill up the breach, she told MPs. The Association of British Insurers was delighted that the abdication of the public sector from its duty to protect citizens meant that private companies were now freed to spend their own money on safeguarding homes. And that was it. There was no questioning of the secretary of state’s highly questionable assertion that private companies are just begging to build floodwalls and divert rivers. Five minutes on flooding. Less than was spent on pig farming. Much less than on the future of English and Welsh waterways (government funding of £39m a year to continue to 2022). And the time spent on owning up to the forestry debacle now looked like a very handy way to deflect attention from the real scandal of Defra’s budget: the fact that, in a clear betrayal of the prime minister’s promise to ringfence flood defence spending, the budget is being cut and thousands of homes and businesses, and several major cities, will be left unprotected, even as scientists warn that more severe storms and floods are on the way. But before the assembled MPs could register how they had been flummoxed, the bell rang again for a division. The committee rose, and Spelman beamed. The minister had got away with it after all! Home and dry. England’s forest sell-off Forests Flooding Rural affairs Green politics Tax and spending Fiona Harvey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Ryanair chief Michael O’Leary says cost of compensating stranded passengers means add-on fee is airline’s only option Ryanair chief executive Michael O’Leary has denied the airline is “punishing” millions of passengers by imposing a £2 levy (€2 in Europe) on fares to pay for customers stranded during last year’s snow, volcano and air traffic control chaos. The chief executive of Europe’s largest short-haul carrier said the airline had no choice but to introduce a new add-on charge from next week after the European Union failed to reform its EU261 compensation law. O’Leary said the £110m raised by the fee over the next 12 months will cover the cost of providing hotels and compensation to passengers stranded by last year’s severe weather, the Icelandic volcano eruption and air traffic control strikes in Belgium, France and Spain. ” If you are not allowed, as EU261 regulation states, to recover these costs then the passenger must pay,” said O’Leary, repeating calls for a ” force majeure ” clause that would waive compensation for delays and cancellations outside an airline’s control. O’Leary denied he was punishing passengers this year in order to pay for customers stranded last year who, for instance, had to spend an extra fortnight in hotels in Tenerife due to the Icelandic volcano that shut down European airspace in April . “Nobody has argued that Ryanair punishes people given that we offer the lowest fares and are the most punctual airline,” O’Leary said. He also predicted that other airlines will soon follow suit if there is no EU261 reform. “If the EU says airlines should become the insurer of last resort then we have to be allowed to recover the costs from passengers.” The Ryanair boss pledged to reduce the levy to zero next year if the airline incurs no “unfair” EU261 costs over the next 12 months. The levy represents a 6% increase on last year’s average fare of £30. The consumer group Which? said Ryanair should use the proceeds from the levy to ensure that all EU261 payments are dealt with swiftly in the future. Rochelle Turner, head of research for Which? Travel, said: “Since this charge is going to be passed on to all Ryanair passengers from now on, we will be watching closely to see how it deals with claims made under EU261. With more money to put towards resources for processing claims, Ryanair will have no excuse for delays in dealing with them.” Ryanair Airline industry Michael O’Leary Flights Consumer affairs Dan Milmo guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Delta E4 electric coupe goes out for a spin, carrying lucky humanoid (video)
March 31, 2011 No Comment
When was the last time you rode in an electric vehicle almost entirely constructed of carbon fiber and good for 250 miles on a charge? We’re laying odds on “never,” which is why we turned a shade of violent green when we saw Fully Charged host (and part-time Series 4000 Mechanoid) Robert Llewellyn set foot in just such a car. Delta Motorsport’s E4 Coupe, originally designed to win an Automotive X-Prize, is the vehicle we’re referring to here, and despite the fact that only one-third of its full projected power was available to coax Mr. Llewellyn firmly into his racing seat (four-wheel drive and regenerative braking are also TBD) and set his teeth on edge, we have to give the man some major props for documenting the experience for us on film. Watch it after the break. Continue reading Delta E4 electric coupe goes out for a spin, carrying lucky humanoid (video) Delta E4 electric coupe goes out for a spin, carrying lucky humanoid (video) originally appeared on Engadget on Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:13:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …The Libyan regime has presented what appears to be the first credible case of a civilian killed by coalition air strikes. Reporters were escorted to a village in western Libya where a family mourned their 18-month-old son, who authorities say was killed when a rocket pierced the home following a…
Continue reading …