Bernie Madoff Victims Get Final Payment – Recoup 93 Percent of their Losses

An amazing ending to the Bernie Madoff story. After sixteen years the ending has come with the final payment to his victims. In total, 40,930 of Madoff’s victims from 127 counties have recouped over $4.3 billion in compensation — or 93.71% of their losses, the feds said. $4.3 Billion tracked down.

Not bad at all. One could easily lose that much in a bad stock trade. A good story to end the year with don’t you think?

New York Post:

Bernie Madoff victims get final $131M payout from compensation fund, bringing total to a whopping $4.3B: feds

..

The Madoff Victim Fund began distributing its 10th and last payment of $131.4 million to more than 23,000 victims worldwide, according to the Manhattan US Attorney’s office.

The Department of Justice set up the fund over a decade ago to repay people swindled by Madoff — who died behind bars in 2021 while serving out a 150-year sentence.Madoff’s massive ripoff — believed to be the biggest stock fraud in history — came to light roughly 16 years ago during the financial crisis of the late 2000s.

He and his co-conspirators, including brother Peter Madoff, were forced to fork over the ill-gotten gains as part of the prosecution by the Manhattan US attorney’s office — funds used to pay back victims, the feds said.

Additionally, about $2.2 billion of the victim compensation funds were collected from the estate of a deceased Madoff investor, Jeffry Picower, and another $1.7 billion came as part of an agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, according to prosecutors.

Now that is what you call a wrap.

Good news from the swamp!

California Bill Will Ban Staff From Stopping Stealing From Their Stores

Come one come all and help yourself to all that is in the California stores without fear or worries. So goes the bill before the California  State government. As if giving a free pass to helping oneself to anything under $950 bucks without a consequence wasn’t enough, let us up the anti with the sky is the limit, just help yourself.

California lawmakers are hoping to push through controversial legislation that would ban retail staff from stopping thieves stealing from their stores.

Senate Bill 553, which was submitted by State Senator Dave Cortese, has been passed by the State Senate and will now progress to policy committees in the State Assembly. Cortese hopes the proposed law will prevent workplace violence and protect staff from being forced by their employers to step-in during robberies. But some store bosses are furious about the plans, with the California Retailers Association mocking the move as an open invitation for thieves “to come in and steal.”

The proposed new laws come as stores have blamed shoplifting for hitting their businesses, with Target issuing a statement in November blaming “organized retail crime” for an eye-watering $400 million loss in its profits in 2022.

The State Senate passed a new bill this week that supporters say would help keep employees safer from workplace violence.

How did this get to this place?

Good luck California and America.

H/T: Newsweek

NLRB plans on stopping businesses from ever moving

How soon are we going to realize that we are living in a totalitarian state? The infamous NLRB that Obama has pinned his high hopes on destroying any vestiges of a free state is back at it and wants to condemn businesses from ever moving their business. I was surprised to read at present, the Courts can already mandate a business remain in its present location. And just who is Mr. Griffin?

Richard Griffin, the new general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, wants to give unions a veto over a unionized employer’s decision to relocate. If Griffin has his way, and he most assuredly will, some unionized businesses will be pinned in place at the discretion of their unions.

Mr. Griffin previously served as General Counsel for International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE).  He also served on the board of directors for the AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Committee, a position he held since 1994.  Since 1983, he has held a number of leadership positions with IUOE from Assistant House Counsel to Associate General Counsel. From 1985 to 1994, Mr. Griffin served as a member of the board of trustees of the IUOE’s central pension fund.

Unions can contest the employer’s decision, but they have no right to participate in it or otherwise delay it absent a court order enjoining it.

 

Griffin’s intent was disclosed in a memorandum he sent the agency’s regional directors ordering them not to act on cases presenting issues “of concern” to him — and there were many such issues — without receiving guidance from his office. Griffin’s guidance will be to order an employer to be prosecuted not on the basis of what the law is but on the law as Griffin would like it to be. This will give the board an opportunity to change the law.

Under current law, it is perfectly legal for a unionized employer to relocate some or all of its facilities and eliminate bargaining-unit work if the move is motivated by economic gain — not by a desire to retaliate against employees for their union activities and support. A desire to escape the consequences of unionization, particularly high labor costs, is considered an independent, innocent motivation, not an unlawful one. Big Labor loathes this law; Griffin intends to help unions nullify it.

Under longstanding NLRB law, a unionized employer is not required to bargain with the union over a relocation decision that is motivated by labor-cost savings if the employer determines that bargaining would be futile — that the union could not offer labor-cost savings that could change its decision. Unions can contest the employer’s decision, but they have no right to participate in it or otherwise delay it absent a court order enjoining it.

More ate 

 

Biden: ‘We must create a New World Order’

 

Biden: The ‘affirmative task’ before us is to ‘create a new world order’

So we have to make sure the world including China succeeds.  This man wants to be the next President. Think about it. Yet if we mention NWO, we are defined as wacko birds and believe in conspiracy “theories”. Go figure.

Vice President Joe Biden calls for the creation of a “new world order” at the Export Import Bank conference in Washington on April 5, 2013.

 

Obamacare and the coverup that should do Sebelius in

The Weekly Standard has a story that should be front page news and a headliner. If this does not do in Kathie and Obama, nothing will. Talk about cronyism. One of the most corrupt governments in memory may have gone a bridge to far. For those discouraged, this may give us a lift. The States’ refusal to be complicit in this crucial aspect of Obamacare with the exchanges should shine a spotlight on the development of the federal exchanges — and what it illuminates won’t be pretty. Here we go:

The Obama administration’s congressional allies botched the drafting of this aspect of the health care overhaul, as the plain language of Obamacare doesn’t empower federal exchanges to distribute taxpayer-funded subsidies to individuals; it empowers only state-based exchanges to distribute the subsidies. (The administration pretends otherwise.) Moreover, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is lagging behind in developing the federal exchanges.

It gets worse. HHS has contracted with a subsidiary of a private health care company to help build and police the very exchanges in which that company will be competing for business. The person who ran the government entity that awarded that contract has since accepted a position with a different subsidiary of that same company. An insurance industry insider (speaking on the condition of anonymity) says that HHS, in an attempt to hide this unseemly contract from public view until after the election, encouraged the company to hide the transaction from the Securities and Exchange Commission.

in January, HHS awarded Quality Software Services, Inc. (QSSI) what the Hill describes as “a large contract to build a federal data services hub to help run the complex federal health insurance exchange.” At that time, the director of Obamacare’s newly established Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) — which the Hill describes as “the office tasked with crafting rules for the national exchange” — was Steve Larsen. Larsen had been the insurance commissioner for Maryland when Obama’s HHS secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, was the insurance commissioner for Kansas, and the two are reportedly close. The CCIIO awarded the Obamacare exchange contract to QSSI while Larsen was the CCIIO’s director, and he played a central role in planning the construction of the exchanges — although it’s not known whether he made the decision to award the contract to QSSI or not.

Under the contract that it signed with HHS, QSSI’s power would be substantial — as QSSI would shape, run, and affect companies’ ability to compete to sell insurance through Obamacare’s federal exchanges. The Hill writes, “A draft statement of work for the contract awarded to QSSI states the contractor should provide services necessary to acquire, certify and decertify health plans offered on a federal exchange.” Moreover, “It stipulates the contractor should monitor agreements with health plans, ensure compliance with federal standards and” — somewhat strikingly — “take corrective action when necessary.” Full story Weekly Standard

Senate approves Export-Import Bank after Obama trashes charter

When  I caught this post from The Hill that the Senate had approved the Export-Import bank vote, it certainly rang a bell with me. Indeed, Obama changed the charter back in February without so much as a ” how did he do that” comment from much of anyone. He trashed the charter so he could compete with U.S. banks and give out money to the greenies. First the good news:

The Senate passed legislation reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank on Tuesday after voting down five amendments that would have limited the program’s scope and power.

The passage of the bill, in a 78-20 vote, sends the legislation to President Obama, who is expected to sign the reauthorization, which runs through September 2014.

The reauthorization also ends an unexpectedly long fight on Capitol that divided the Republican Party.
 
The Export-Import Bank is generally considered a noncontroversial bill, but it came under attack this year from conservatives who argued it was a form of corporate welfare that distorted free trade.

Obama trashes Import Export Bank Charter – February 19, 2012

Here he goes again. Throwing out the Charter to the Import-Export bank. What was in effect for 80 years, he just says now that is an annoyance. Best part is that he will no doubt give preference for Green companies. He is moving on to finalize the taking over of all banking, you betcha. If he gets by with this, there will be no end if he subverts  Bank Charters. GOP? I can’t hear you! American Thinker has the whole thing, if you have the stomach for it on a Sunday.

Acting without any legal authority, President Obama has overridden the federal charter of the Export-Import Bank, and turned it into a competitor for domestic loan business, in utter defiance of the law.  Hardly anyone has noticed or seems to care. Speaking at a Boeing assembly plant in Everett, Washington Friday, President Barack Obama announced a bold new plan to help American exporters:  he would broaden the services of the Ex-Im Bank to help grow our exports.

He has also announced that he will order the Ex-Im Bank to begin making short-term financing loans of six to twelve months — not necessarily connected to any export sales! — to small domestic firms who want to increase their exporting activity.  That’s so open-ended, it can mean anything and include any company.  Not that there’s anything wrong with loans to small businesses; it’s just that this is not the job of the Ex-Im Bank.  Short-term loans to domestic businesses are for normal domestic banks to offer; that’s what the business department of every bank in the country is for!

Well, if there’s one thing we’ve learned from watching the Obama Administration in action for three years, if there’s anything they despise, it’s pesky laundry lists of rules that limit executive desires.

Read more: Amercan Thinker

Many French companies stop with 49 employees

Anyone wonder why France is going down the tubes? Yet these are the same plans the Obama administration would have us follow. First off course. it starts with Obamacare. If a company has 50 employees, they must pay a penalty if they do not provide Health Insurance, and I am sure there are other penalties as well. Is this what we want for America? With the election of Hollande it will only get worse for France, and they are determined to repeat history.  We are well on our way, and here is the lesson to be learned. This was written prior to the election.

While polls show job creation and the economic crisis are the top issues for voters in the May 5 second-round vote for president, neither President Nicolas Sarkozy nor Socialist challenger François Hollande are focusing on Breton’s concern. Companies say the biggest obstacle to hiring is the 102-year-old Code du Travail, a 3,200-page rule book that dictates everything from job classifications to the ability to fire workers. Many of these rules kick in after a company’s French payroll creeps beyond 49.

The code sets hurdles for any company that seeks to shed jobs when it’s turning a profit. It also grants judges the authority to reverse staff cuts years after they’re initiated if companies don’t follow the rules. The courts even deem some violations of the code a criminal offense that could send executives to jail.

Here’s a curious fact about the French economy: The country has 2.4 times as many companies with 49 employees as with 50. What difference does one employee make? Plenty, according to the French labor code. Once a company has at least 50 employees inside France, management must create three worker councils, introduce profit sharing, and submit restructuring plans to the councils if the company decides to fire workers for economic reasons.

More at  Business week.

SEC Ruling Requires Companies to Tell Shareholders if Climate Laws Are Bad for Business

Oh this will help the business climate. Another nail in the coffin for sending American companies overseas. Driving down stock prices helps everone’s pension plan.

A new ruling by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would require corporations to inform their shareholders of the business risks and potential impacts of climate change legislation, environmental regulation, and international climate treaties. The ruling marks the first time the SEC has required companies to make such information available to shareholders.

“Ultimately what this points to is, hopefully, companies looking at their own portfolios of internal investments and internal stranded capital and assets and rearranging so that they are less addicted to oil and less involved in dirty technology and more involved in clean technology,” Davies said.
 
“That’s the goal here, full disclosure of those vulnerabilities and or advantages for other companies,” Davies continued. “Maybe this helps to level that, at least in investors’ minds and then we get to a more sane economy that makes the right choices.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=60733