Apple CEO calls Einhorn lawsuit a "sideshow"


SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Apple Inc CEO Tim Cook dubbed David Einhorn's lawsuit against his company a "sideshow" but said on Tuesday the board is carefully considering the star hedge fund manager's proposal to issue preferred stock, calling it "creative."


Waving off claims that Apple is clinging to a "Depression-era" mentality, Cook said the board is in "very active discussions" on how to share more of its $137 billion hoard of cash and marketable securities.


David Einhorn is suing Apple as part of a wider effort to get the iPhone maker to share more of its cash pile, one of the largest in the technology industry. Einhorn wants it to issue perpetual preferred shares that pay dividends to existing shareholders, arguing that such a vehicle would be superior to dividends or share buybacks.


His clash with Apple revolves around a proposed change to its charter that would eliminate the company's ability to issue "blank check" preferred stock at its discretion. Apple is recommending shareholders vote in favor of that at their annual meeting on February 27.


The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of Southern District of New York, objects to how that charter change is bundled together with two other corporate governance-related proposals in "Proposal 2", in the proxy document for the annual meeting.


While Cook gave Einhorn credit for the idea, the usually calm chief executive seemed to become impatient when discussing the topic. He was dismissive of Einhorn's media and legal blitz - which included the lawsuit as well as multiple television and media interviews - terming last week's episode "bizarre".


Cook, who traded in his usual casual jeans attire for a suit jacket - said the more serious issue here was finding ways to return cash.


"This is a waste of shareholder money and a distraction and not a seminal issue for Apple. That said, I support Prop 2. I am personally going to vote for it," Cook told investors at Goldman Sachs' annual technology industry conference in San Francisco.


The conflict over Prop 2 "is a silly sideshow," he added. Cook said he found it "bizarre that we would find ourselves being sued for doing something good for shareholders."


Apple's share price has tumbled in recent months from a high of just over $700 last September. By late morning on Tuesday, the shares were down around 1.8 percent at $471.40.


Apple stock is a mainstay in many fund managers' portfolios, with research outfit eVestment estimating that 75 percent of U.S. large-cap growth managers had invested more than 5 percent of their portfolios in Apple as of the end of the third quarter of 2012.


But that also piles on the pressure on Apple to give away a bigger portion of its cash pile, pressure that is increasing as the share price declines and its outlook grows murkier.


Cook also touched on Apple's acquisition strategy, saying that the company has looked at more than one large acquisition but each time it didn't pass the company's internal test.


But it could do one in the future, if the technology fits.


"We have the management talent and depth to do it," he said. "We don't feel the pressure to go out and acquire revenue."


Cook, who rarely speaks at length in public, also addressed criticism that Apple's pace of innovation has slowed, saying that product innovation is embedded in its culture.


"It's never been stronger," he said. "There is no better place for innovation. Apple is the center of innovation."


Cook said the company was also trying to appeal to cost-conscious customers. Apple has moved to make the iPhone more affordable without introducing a specific cheaper phone by cutting prices of older models.


"We didn't have enough supply of iPhone 4 after we cut the price," he said. "It surprised us the level of demand for it."


(Additional reporting by Jennifer Saba in New York; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick and Claudia Parsons)



Read More..

Back to New Orleans: Beyonce to perform at Essence


NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Beyonce is coming back to New Orleans and back to the Superdome.


After entertaining a huge television audience in a packed dome during the Super Bowl halftime show, Beyonce is now scheduled to perform at the Essence Festival.


Festival officials said Monday that she will return to the dome to headline one of three night concerts during the festival, which is set for the Fourth of July weekend.


Beyonce joins an Essence musical line-up that also includes Jill Scott, Maxwell, New Edition, Charlie Wilson, Keyshia Cole, LL Cool J, Brandy and others.


Read More..

Well: Straining to Hear and Fend Off Dementia

At a party the other night, a fund-raiser for a literary magazine, I found myself in conversation with a well-known author whose work I greatly admire. I use the term “conversation” loosely. I couldn’t hear a word he said. But worse, the effort I was making to hear was using up so much brain power that I completely forgot the titles of his books.

A senior moment? Maybe. (I’m 65.) But for me, it’s complicated by the fact that I have severe hearing loss, only somewhat eased by a hearing aid and cochlear implant.

Dr. Frank Lin, an otolaryngologist and epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, describes this phenomenon as “cognitive load.” Cognitive overload is the way it feels. Essentially, the brain is so preoccupied with translating the sounds into words that it seems to have no processing power left to search through the storerooms of memory for a response.


Katherine Bouton speaks about her own experience with hearing loss.


A transcript of this interview can be found here.


Over the past few years, Dr. Lin has delivered unwelcome news to those of us with hearing loss. His work looks “at the interface of hearing loss, gerontology and public health,” as he writes on his Web site. The most significant issue is the relation between hearing loss and dementia.

In a 2011 paper in The Archives of Neurology, Dr. Lin and colleagues found a strong association between the two. The researchers looked at 639 subjects, ranging in age at the beginning of the study from 36 to 90 (with the majority between 60 and 80). The subjects were part of the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. None had cognitive impairment at the beginning of the study, which followed subjects for 18 years; some had hearing loss.

“Compared to individuals with normal hearing, those individuals with a mild, moderate, and severe hearing loss, respectively, had a 2-, 3- and 5-fold increased risk of developing dementia over the course of the study,” Dr. Lin wrote in an e-mail summarizing the results. The worse the hearing loss, the greater the risk of developing dementia. The correlation remained true even when age, diabetes and hypertension — other conditions associated with dementia — were ruled out.

In an interview, Dr. Lin discussed some possible explanations for the association. The first is social isolation, which may come with hearing loss, a known risk factor for dementia. Another possibility is cognitive load, and a third is some pathological process that causes both hearing loss and dementia.

In a study last month, Dr. Lin and colleagues looked at 1,984 older adults beginning in 1997-8, again using a well-established database. Their findings reinforced those of the 2011 study, but also found that those with hearing loss had a “30 to 40 percent faster rate of loss of thinking and memory abilities” over a six-year period compared with people with normal hearing. Again, the worse the hearing loss, the worse the rate of cognitive decline.

Both studies also found, somewhat surprisingly, that hearing aids were “not significantly associated with lower risk” for cognitive impairment. But self-reporting of hearing-aid use is unreliable, and Dr. Lin’s next study will focus specifically on the way hearing aids are used: for how long, how frequently, how well they have been fitted, what kind of counseling the user received, what other technologies they used to supplement hearing-aid use.

What about the notion of a common pathological process? In a recent paper in the journal Neurology, John Gallacher and colleagues at Cardiff University suggested the possibility of a genetic or environmental factor that could be causing both hearing loss and dementia — and perhaps not in that order. In a phenomenon called reverse causation, a degenerative pathology that leads to early dementia might prove to be a cause of hearing loss.

The work of John T. Cacioppo, director of the Social Neuroscience Laboratory at the University of Chicago, also offers a clue to a pathological link. His multidisciplinary studies on isolation have shown that perceived isolation, or loneliness, is “a more important predictor of a variety of adverse health outcomes than is objective social isolation.” Those with hearing loss, who may sit through a dinner party and not hear a word, frequently experience perceived isolation.

Other research, including the Framingham Heart Study, has found an association between hearing loss and another unexpected condition: cardiovascular disease. Again, the evidence suggests a common pathological cause. Dr. David R. Friedland, a professor of otolaryngology at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, hypothesized in a 2009 paper delivered at a conference that low-frequency loss could be an early indication that a patient has vascular problems: the inner ear is “so sensitive to blood flow” that any vascular abnormalities “could be noted earlier here than in other parts of the body.”

A common pathological cause might help explain why hearing aids do not seem to reduce the risk of dementia. But those of us with hearing loss hope that is not the case; common sense suggests that if you don’t have to work so hard to hear, you have greater cognitive power to listen and understand — and remember. And the sense of perceived isolation, another risk for dementia, is reduced.

A critical factor may be the way hearing aids are used. A user must practice to maximize their effectiveness and they may need reprogramming by an audiologist. Additional assistive technologies like looping and FM systems may also be required. And people with progressive hearing loss may need new aids every few years.

Increasingly, people buy hearing aids online or from big-box stores like Costco, making it hard for the user to follow up. In the first year I had hearing aids, I saw my audiologist initially every two weeks for reprocessing and then every three months.

In one study, Dr. Lin and his colleague Wade Chien found that only one in seven adults who could benefit from hearing aids used them. One deterrent is cost ($2,000 to $6,000 per ear), seldom covered by insurance. Another is the stigma of old age.

Hearing loss is a natural part of aging. But for most people with hearing loss, according to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, the condition begins long before they get old. Almost two-thirds of men with hearing loss began to lose their hearing before age 44. My hearing loss began when I was 30.

Forty-eight million Americans suffer from some degree of hearing loss. If it can be proved in a clinical trial that hearing aids help delay or offset dementia, the benefits would be immeasurable.

“Could we do something to reduce cognitive decline and delay the onset of dementia?” he asked. “It’s hugely important, because by 2050, 1 in 30 Americans will have dementia.

“If we could delay the onset by even one year, the prevalence of dementia drops by 15 percent down the road. You’re talking about billions of dollars in health care savings.”

Should studies establish definitively that correcting hearing loss decreases the potential for early-onset dementia, we might finally overcome the stigma of hearing loss. Get your hearing tested, get it corrected, and enjoy a longer cognitively active life. Establishing the dangers of uncorrected hearing might even convince private insurers and Medicare that covering the cost of hearing aids is a small price to pay to offset the cost of dementia.


Katherine Bouton is the author of the new book, “Shouting Won’t Help: Why I — and 50 Million Other Americans — Can’t Hear You,” from which this essay is adapted.


This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 12, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated the location of the Medical College of Wisconsin. It is in Milwaukee, not Madison.

Read More..

DealBook: Barclays to Cut 3,700 Jobs in Overhaul

8:13 a.m. | Updated

LONDON – Barclays announced a major restructuring that will eliminate 3,700 jobs and close several business units, as the bank reported a big loss in the fourth quarter of 2012.

The overhaul of its operations comes after a series of scandals at the bank, including the manipulation of benchmark interest rates, which led to the resignation of the firm’s former chief executive, Robert E. Diamond Jr.

In a bid to reduce its exposure to risky trading activity, Barclays plans to close a number of operations in Europe and Asia, including a tax-planning unit that has been criticized for tarnishing the firm’s reputation.

“There will be no going back to the old way of doing things,” the chief executive, Antony P. Jenkins, told reporters at a news conference in London on Tuesday. “We will never be in a position again of rewarding people for activities inconsistent with our values.”

Despite the revamp of its operations and a new emphasis on values, the bank plans to retain the majority of its investment banking unit, particularly its operations in Britain and the United States. The division generated roughly 60 percent of the bank’s adjusted pretax profit in 2012.

Barclays will close four business divisions, while another 17 units will either be closed, sold or pared back in response to subdued market activity, Mr. Jenkins said. In total, the expected layoffs across the bank’s operations represent around 3 percent of the firm’s global work force.

The investment banking division is to be among the hardest hit, where about 1,800 employees are expected to be laid off. The job cuts will primarily fall on the bank’s Asian and European equities divisions, as well as its agricultural commodities trading operations. Almost 90 percent of the reductions already have been made, according to Christopher G. Lucas, the bank’s departing chief financial officer.

Mr. Jenkins refused to comment specifically on the position of Rich Ricci, the head of Barclays investment banking, whose name has surfaced in the inquiry into the bank’s role in the rate-rigging scandal.

“No one can predict the future, but I am confident in the team around me,” Mr. Jenkins said. “Who knows what could happen in a year’s time.”

The restructuring plan includes an additional 1,900 job cuts in the bank’s European retail and business banking unit, where Barclays plans to close roughly 30 percent of its Continental branch network.

The reductions have been focused in areas where Barclays does not compete globally with other international banks or where the firm could experience reputational damage like the recent rate-rigging scandal and the inappropriate sales of loan insurance to customers.

“Not much of this is surprising,” said Ian Gordon, a banking analyst at Investec in London. “They are not removing any of the material activities from the investment bank.”

The recent scandals that have engulfed the bank weighed down the firm’s fourth-quarter earnings.

Barclays posted a net loss of £835 million ($1.3 billion) in the last three months of 2012, compared with a profit of £356 million in the period a year earlier.
The results were hampered by the need to set aside additional capital to compensate costumers who were inappropriately sold loan insurance and for small businesses that were improperly sold complex interest-rate hedging products. Barclays also took a charge against the value of its own debt.

Excluding the adjustments, the bank’s pretax profit for the fourth quarter would have been £1.1 billion, almost double the amount in the period a year earlier.
For 2012, the bank reported an annual net loss of £1 billion, compared with a £3 billion profit for 2011. The annual loss resulted from provisions to cover legal costs related to the rate-rigging scandal and other improper activities.

The bank added that it would reduce annual costs by around 10 percent, to £16.8 billion, by 2015. Its share price rose almost 6 percent in afternoon trading in London on Tuesday.

Barclays said it had reduced bonuses across its operations by 16 percent for 2012, compared with the previous year. In its investment banking division, total bonuses fell 20 percent, with the average bonus in the unit standing at £54,100, a 17 percent reduction, according to a company statement.

The bank added that it had cut compensation awards because of risks facing several business units, including the rate-rigging scandal.

In a settlement with American and British authorities in June, Barclays agreed to pay fines totaling $450 million after some of its traders manipulated the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, for financial gain. Some of the firm’s managers also altered the rate to portray the bank in a healthier financial position than it actually was.

The investment banking division reported a pretax profit of £858 million in the fourth quarter, compared with a pretax profit of £267 million in the fourth quarter of 2011. Pretax profit at the bank’s retail and business banking unit rose 17 percent, to £732 million, while pretax profit in its corporate banking division almost tripled, to £107 million.

Mr. Jenkins acknowledged that some of the firm’s past actions had fallen short. He added that the investment banking division would remain at the heart of the firm’s future operations, though wrongdoing would not be tolerated.

“The old ways weren’t the right way to behave nor did they deliver the right results,” Mr. Jenkins said. “Individuals must take responsibility for their own behavior.”

Read More..

The Lede: Latest Updates on the Pope’s Resignation

The Lede is providing updates on Pope Benedict XVI’s announcement on Monday that he intends to resign on Feb. 28, less than eight years after he took office, the first pope to do so in six centuries. (Turn off auto-refresh to watch videos.)
Read More..

Australia to grill Apple, others on pricing


CANBERRA (Reuters) - Apple Inc has been ordered to appear before Australia's parliament with fellow technology giants Microsoft Inc and Adobe Systems Inc to explain why local consumers pay so much for their products, despite the strong Aussie dollar.


Broadening a row between the world's most valuable company and Australian lawmakers over corporate taxes paid on Apple's operations, Apple executives were formally summonsed on Monday to front a parliamentary committee in Canberra on March 22.


"In what's probably the first time anywhere in the world, these IT firms are now being summoned by the Australian parliament to explain why they price their products so much higher in Australia compared to the United States," said ruling Labor government MP Ed Husic, who helped set up the committee.


High local prices and soaring cost-of-living bills for basic services are hurting the popularity of the minority Labor government ahead of a September 14 election it is widely tipped to lose, giving political momentum to the inquiry.


All three companies have so far declined to appear before the special committee set up in May last year to investigate possible price gouging on Australian hardware and software buyers, despite the Australian dollar hovering near record highs above the U.S. currency around A$1.03.


A 16GB WiFi iPad produced by Apple with Retina display sells in Australia for A$539, $40 above the price in the U.S., despite the stronger local currency. Microsoft's latest versions of office 365 home premium cost A$119 in Australia versus $99.99 in the United States.


IT firms and other multinationals have blamed high operating costs in Australia including high local wages and conditions, as well as import costs and the relatively small size of the retail market in the $1.5 trillion economy.


Failure to appear before the committee as ordered could leave all three firms open to contempt of parliament charges, fines or even jail terms.


"For some time consumers and businesses have been trying to work out why they are paying so much more, particularly for software, where if it's downloaded there is no shipping or handling, or much of a labor cost," Husic told Reuters.


Adobe and Microsoft have previously provided separate written statements and submissions to the inquiry. But executives have been reluctant to explain their pricing before a public inquiry.


Apple executives in Australia declined to comment when contacted by Reuters.


"The companies have blamed each other for not appearing. One will say 'we're not going to appear if the other is not going to appear'. So we've cut straight to the chase and said we'll just summons you," Husic said.


Price gouging in IT for hardware and software, Husic said, could be costing Australia's more than 2 million small and medium businesses as much as $10 billion extra.


Husic took aim at Apple last week over local taxes paid by the company, telling parliament that Apple generated A$6 billion in revenue in Australia in 2011, but paid only A$40 million in tax - less than one percent of turnover.


"While they generated A$6 billion in revenue, they apparently racked up from what I understand A$5.5 billion in costs. How?" Husic said. "They do not manufacture here. They have no factories here."


He accused Apple executives of maintaining a "cloak of invisibility", while dodging scrutiny of operations. Apple has been criticized elsewhere for its zealous secrecy.


"Ask anyone who has sought answers from them about their Australian operations and you will hear a common theme. They will not talk," he said.


(Editing by Shri Navaratnam)



Read More..

Grammy audience down, still 2nd highest since 1993


NEW YORK (AP) — While the Grammy Awards couldn't come close to the freakishly high ratings generated in 2012 because of Whitney Houston's death and Adele's smashing success, this year's show had the second-largest audience for the program since 1993.


The Nielsen company said Monday that music's annual awards show was seen by 28.4 million people Sunday night on CBS.


The Grammys this year were packed with high-powered musical moments and, in its awards, celebrated the industry's diversity rather than overwhelmingly honoring one artist. It also had a few water-cooler moments: Which boyfriend was Taylor Swift specifically dissing in her latest performance of "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together"? Was Chris Brown flaunting his revived relationship with Rihanna?


The music academy's decision to turn the televised Grammys into more of a showcase than an awards show appears to be bearing fruit, too. The show's audience was nearly 2 million higher than the 26.7 million who watched in 2011. From 2005 to 2009, the Grammy Awards audience fluctuated from 17 million to 20 million viewers.


Last year, 39.9 million people tuned in to see how the industry would react to Houston's death just before the awards and celebrate the coronation of its hottest star, Adele, who won six Grammys.


This year's show featured the musical return of Justin Timberlake, collaborations honoring Bob Marley and Levon Helm, and performances by the majority of stars up for major awards.


The Grammys far outpaced the Emmys, which had 13.3 million viewers last September for its more traditional awards show, and the Golden Globes, which had 19.7 million viewers in January. The upcoming Oscars usually get more than 30 million viewers.


Read More..

Well: Price for a New Hip? Many Hospitals Are Stumped

Jaime Rosenthal, a senior at Washington University in St. Louis, called more than 100 hospitals in every state last summer, seeking prices for a hip replacement for a 62-year-old grandmother who was uninsured but had the means to pay herself.

The quotes she received might surprise even hardened health care economists: only about half of the hospitals, including top-ranked orthopedic centers and community hospitals, could provide any sort of price estimate, despite repeated calls. Those that could gave quotes that varied by a factor of more than 10, from $11,100 to $125,798.

Ms. Rosenthal’s grandmother was fictitious, created for a summer research project on health care costs. But the findings, which form the basis of a paper released on Monday by JAMA Internal Medicine, are likely to fan the debate on the unsustainable growth of American health care costs and an opaque medical system in which prices are often hidden from consumers.

“Transparency is all the rage these days in government and business, but there has been little push for pricing transparency in health care, and there’s virtually no information,” said Dr. Peter Cram, an associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Iowa, who wrote the paper with Ms. Rosenthal. He added: “I can get the price for a car, for a can of oil, for a gallon of milk. But health care? That’s not so easy.”

President Obama’s Affordable Care Act focused primarily on providing insurance to Americans who did not have it. But the high price of care remains an elephant in the room. Although many experts have said that Americans must become more discerning consumers to help rein in costs, the study illustrates how hard that can be.

“We’ve been trying to help patients get good value, but it is really hard to get price commitments from hospitals — we see this all the time,” said Jeff Rice, the chief executive of Healthcare Blue Book, a company that collects data on medical procedures, doctors visits and tests. “And even if they say $20,000, it often turns out $40,000 or 60,000.”

There are many caveats to the study. Most patients — or insurers — never pay the full sticker price of surgery, because insurance companies bargain with hospitals and doctors for discounted rates. When Ms. Rosenthal balked at initial high estimates, some hospitals produced lower rates for a person without insurance.

But in other ways the telephone quotations underestimated prices, because they did not include the fees for outpatient rehabilitation, for example.

In an accompanying commentary, Andrew Steinmetz and Ezekiel J. Emanuel of the University of Pennsylvania acknowledged that there was “no justification” for the inability to provide estimates or for the wide range of prices. But they said that more rigorous data on quality — like infection rates and unexpected deaths — were required to know when high prices were worth it.

“Without quality data to accompany price data, physicians, consumers and other health care decision makers have no idea if a lower price represents shoddy quality of if it constitutes good value,” they wrote.

But, broadly, researchers emphasized that studies had found little consistent correlation between higher prices and better quality in American health care. Dr. Cram said there was no data that “Mercedes” hip implants were better than cheaper options, for example.

Jamie Court, the president of the California-based Consumer Watchdog, said: “If one hospital can put in a hip for $12,000, then every hospital should be able to do it. When there’s 100 percent variation in sticker price, then there is no real price. It’s about profit.”

Dr. Cram said the study did contain some good news: some of the country’s top-ranked hospitals came up with “bargain basement prices” in response to repeated calls. “If you’re a good consumer and shop around, you can get a good price — you don’t have to pay $120,000 for a Honda,” he said.

But that shopping can be arduous in a market not set up to respond to consumers. To get a total price, Ms. Rosenthal often had to call the hospital to get its estimate for on-site care, and a separate quote from doctors. And many were simply perplexed when she asked for a price upfront, Ms. Rosenthal said, adding, “The people who answered didn’t know what to do with the question.”

Read More..

DealBook: Goldman Names Gregg Lemkau as New Co-Head of M.&A.

Goldman Sachs named Gregg R. Lemkau as a new co-head of global mergers and acquisitions on Monday, according to an internal memorandum reviewed by DealBook.

Mr. Lemkau, who has been based in London since 2008, will hold that title along with Gene T. Sykes, who has served as the sole co-head since the departure of Yoel Zaoui in April.

“Gregg will work closely together with Gene, as well as with Michael Carr, head of Americas M.&A., to lead this important client franchise, which is core to our investment banking business,” Goldman’s three heads of investment banking, Richard J. Gnodde, David Solomon and John S. Weinberg, wrote in the memo.

Mr. Lemkau is currently the head of mergers for Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific, and was previously a global co-head of the technology, media and telecommunications group. He was previously the chief operating officer of the firm’s investment bank and co-head of its health care banking group.

He also comes from a banking family of sorts. His brother Curt, known as Chip, is a wealth management executive at Goldman, according to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority records. And a sister, Kristin, is a senior media relations executive at JPMorgan Chase.

He will be succeeded as the head of mergers for Europe by Gilberto Pozzi, who currently is a co-head of Goldman’s global consumer retail group. Mr. Pozzi will in turn be succeeded by F.X. de Mallmann.


Here is the memo for Mr. Lemkau:

We are pleased to announce that Gregg Lemkau will become co-head of Global Mergers & Acquisitions alongside Gene Sykes. Gregg will work closely together with Gene, as well as with Michael Carr, head of Americas M.&A., to lead this important client franchise which is core to our investment banking business.

Gregg has been head of Mergers & Acquisitions for EMEA and Asia Pacific since 2011. Prior to this, he was global co-head of the Technology, Media and Telecom Group and served as chief operating officer for the Investment Banking Division. Gregg serves as co-chair of the Firmwide Commitments Committee and is a member of the Partnership Committee and the Investment Banking Division Operating Committee. He joined Goldman Sachs as an analyst in the Mergers & Acquisitions Department in 1992 and was named managing director in 2001 and partner in 2002.

Please join us in congratulating Gregg and wishing him continued success in his new role.

Richard J. Gnodde
David Solomon
John S. Weinberg

And here is the one for Mr. Pozzi:

We are pleased to announce that Gilberto Pozzi will become head of EMEA Mergers & Acquisitions. In his new role, Gilberto will strive to further deepen the dialogue with our clients on their M.&A. strategic objectives, continue to enhance our execution standards and share best practices across industry and country teams. Gilberto will retain responsibilities for many of his clients in the consumer and retail sector while sourcing and executing M.&A. transactions across various countries and industry groups in EMEA.

Gilberto has been co-head of the Global Consumer Retail Group since 2010. Previously, he was head of the Consumer Retail Group for EMEA. Gilberto joined Goldman Sachs as an associate in London in 1995 and was named managing director in 2003 and partner in 2008.

Please join us in congratulating Gilberto and wishing him continued success in his new role.

Richard J. Gnodde
David Solomon
John S. Weinberg

And here is the one for Mr. de Mallmann:

We are pleased to announce that F.X. de Mallmann will become co-head of the Global Consumer Retail Group alongside Kathy Elsesser. In addition to his new role, F.X. will continue to be responsible for Investment Banking Services (I.B.S.) in EMEA.

F.X. has been head of I.B.S. in EMEA since January 2012. Prior to this, he was head of the Financing Group in EMEA from 2008 to 2011. Before that, F.X. served as chief operating officer for the Investment Banking Division. From 2002 to 2007, he served as head of Investment Banking for Switzerland. F.X. joined Goldman Sachs as an analyst in London in 1993 and was named managing director in 2003 and partner in 2004.

Please join us in congratulating F.X. and wishing him continued success in his new role.

Richard J. Gnodde
David Solomon
John S. Weinberg

Read More..

Paterno Family Challenges Accusation of Cover-Up



The 238-page report, which was compiled by a team led by Richard Thornburgh, a former United States attorney general, and released Sunday, said an even larger investigation into the scandal by Louis Freeh, the former F.B.I. director, was “factually wrong, speculative and fundamentally flawed.”


According to the Thornburgh report, the Freeh inquiry, which was ordered by the Penn State board of trustees and released in July, falsely accused Mr. Paterno of helping to cover up Sandusky’s repeated abuse to shield the school from adverse publicity, and wrongly blamed the “football culture” at Penn State for helping foster Sandusky’s crimes.


Unlike a legal proceeding, no one testified under oath and witnesses were allowed to speak anonymously in the Freeh report, which also failed to conduct interviews with “most of the key witnesses,” the Thornburgh report said, including the university’s top executives and Police Department as well as the district attorney’s office in Centre County, where Penn State is.


“Having never talked with these individuals, the Freeh report still claimed to know what they did and why they did it,” the Thornburgh report said.


Since Sandusky was arrested in late 2011, the Paterno family has been adamant that Paterno, who died a year ago, did not cover up Sandusky’s crimes and that he followed university protocol in 2001 when he reported the matter to his superiors.


The university fired Paterno soon after the scandal broke, driving a wedge through the Penn State community where the longtime coach had been a beloved figure. While many students and alumni stood by the coach and his family, the university removed a statue of Paterno. The N.C.A.A. later imposed punitive sanctions on the school and football program.


The Thornburgh report repeated many of the claims made by the family in the past. Freeh, who has declined to address criticisms of his report, issued his own statement on Sunday.


“I respect the right of the Paterno family to hire private lawyers and former government officials to conduct public media campaigns in an effort to shape the legacy of Joe Paterno,” Freeh said. “However, the self-serving report the Paterno family has issued today does not change the facts established in the Freeh report or alter the conclusions reached in the Freeh report.”


Read More..