|
Back in Black!
Updated : 2-24-10



|

|
 |


 |



|
|
| |
5-11-07
Shareholders Send Signal to IP Board
AP
NEW
YORK (AP) - Directors at International Paper Co. were re-elected
Monday, overcoming a significant vote of no confidence amid
calls for annual board elections.
Director John L. Townsend
was re-elected to the board despite "withhold" votes representing
roughly 38 percent of those cast, according to a
preliminary count. Director Martha F. Brooks was also re-elected
despite a quarter of those votes withheld. In corporate elections,
the withholding of more than
20 percent of the
vote is generally considered high.
The protest vote follows the board's rejection of calls for the
annual election of directors despite majority shareholder support
for this motion last year. At last year's annual shareholder
meeting, 80 percent of votes were cast, representing 65 percent of
the shares outstanding, in favor of a proposal asking that directors
be elected annually.
International Paper's board is currently elected on a "staggered"
basis where a third of the directors are elected every three years.
Shareholders often push for annual elections as a way to increase
board accountability.
"Because of the recent voting recommendations from certain
shareholder advisory services to withhold votes from Mr. Townsend
and Ms. Brooks, we had anticipated that would be reflected in the
results, but overall we see today's outcome as very positive," said
Amy Sawyer, a spokeswoman for the company.
Among shareholders that opposed the re-election of Brooks and
Townsend was public pension fund California Public Employees'
Retirement System, or CalPERS, which owns 2.5 million of IP's 452.5
million shares. The other two directors that were up for election
this year are new to the board.
Firms
that advise institutional shareholders on voting in corporate
elections recommended that shareholders withhold votes from these
directors as well.
Memphis, Tenn.-based International Paper is a paper and packaging
company.
|
8-10-06 International
Paper To Pay $12.4 Million To Settle Fiber Prices Suit
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)-
International Paper
Co. (IP) agreed to pay $12.4 million to settle a class-action lawsuit
that alleged the company and some of its fiber suppliers conspired to
artificially depress fiber prices.
The Memphis, Tenn., paper and
forest products company said in its quarterly report filed late Monday
with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it maintains its
supplier program didn't violate any antitrust laws.
International Paper said the Federal District Court in Columbia, S.C.,
has preliminarily approved the settlement and that a final hearing for
court approval is set for Sept. 25.
In a previous filing, International Paper said the suit, filed by a
group of private landowners in September 2002, alleged that the
company and some fiber suppliers "engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to
artificially depress the prices at which the company procures fibers
for its mills."
-By Nicolas Brulliard; Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-1351;
nicolas.brulliard@ dowjones.com
Do
you know what's really funny? When it comes time to give us a raise
you would think the company is impoverished and yet they have 12.4
million dollars laying around to pay their settlements with.
And I might point out the fact they still deny doing anything wrong.
|
|
AP:
U.S. Offers Tips on Avoiding OT Pay
Quote
By:
Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division administrator, Tammy McCutchen
"Unless
you have a contract, there is no legal rule ... prohibiting an employer
from either raising your salary or cutting your salary,"
Article
By LEIGH STROPE, AP Labor Writer
WASHINGTON
- A proposed Labor Department (news
- web
sites) rule suggests ways employers can avoid paying overtime to some
of the 1.3 million low-income workers who would become eligible this year.
The department's
advice comes even as it touts the $895 million in increased wages that it
says those workers would be guaranteed from the reforms. Among
the options for employers: cut workers' hourly wages and add the overtime
to equal the original salary, or raise salaries to the new $22,100 annual
threshold, making them ineligible. The department says it is merely
listing well-known choices available to employers, even under current law.
"We're not saying anybody should do any of this," said Labor
Department spokesman Ed Frank. New overtime regulations were proposed in
March after employers complained they were being saddled with costly
lawsuits filed by workers who claimed they were unfairly being denied
overtime. But the regulations themselves have stirred controversy over how
many workers would be stripped of their right to overtime pay. The issue
is being seized by Democrats in their attempt to win back Congress and the
White House. A final rule, revising the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, is
expected to be issued in March. The act defines the types of jobs that
qualify workers for time-and-a-half if they work more than 40 hours a
week. Overtime pay for the 1.3
million low-income workers has been a selling tool for the Bush
administration in trying to ease concerns in Congress about millions
of higher-paid workers becoming ineligible. But the Labor
Department, in a summary of its plan published last March, suggests how
employers can avoid paying overtime to those newly eligible low-income
workers. "Most employers affected by the proposed rule would be
expected to choose the most cost-effective compensation adjustment
method," the department said. For some companies, the financial
impact could be "near zero," it said. Employers' options
include: _Adhering to a 40-hour work week. _Raising workers' salaries to a
new $22,100 annual threshold, making them ineligible for overtime pay. If
employers raise a worker's salary "it means they're getting a raise
— that's not a way around overtime," Frank said. The current
threshold is $8,060 per year. _Making a "payroll adjustment"
that results "in virtually no, or only a minimal increase in labor
costs," the
department said. Workers' annual pay would be converted to an hourly rate
and cut, with overtime added in to equal the former salary. Essentially,
employees would be working more hours for the same pay.
The
department does not view the "payroll adjustment" option as a
pay cut. Rather, it allows the employer to "maintain the pay at the
current level" with the new overtime requirements, said the Labor
Department's Wage and Hour Division administrator, Tammy McCutchen, an
architect of the plan. Labor
unions criticized the employer options. Mark Wilson, a lawyer for the
Communications Workers of America who specializes in overtime issues, said
the Bush administration was protecting the interests of employers at the
expense of workers. "This plan speaks volumes about the real
motives of this so-called family-friendly administration," Wilson
said. He says cutting workers' pay to avoid overtime is illegal, based on
a 1945 Supreme Court ruling and a 1986 memo by the Labor Department under
President Reagan. But
McCutchen disagreed. If changes were made week to week to avoid overtime,
they would be illegal. A one-time change is not, she said. "We
had a lot of lawyers look at this rule. We would not have put that in
there if we thought it was illegal," she said. "Unless
you have a contract, there is no legal rule ... prohibiting an employer
from either raising your salary or cutting your salary," she
said, adding, "We do not anticipate employers will cut
people's pay." The final plan does not require approval from
Congress. That hasn't stopped Democrats and some Republicans from trying
to block the rule, thus far unsuccessfully, out of fear that millions of
workers would become ineligible for overtime. Department officials say
about 644,000 higher-paid workers would lose their overtime eligibility.
But the proposal says 1.5 million to 2.7 million workers "will be
more readily identified as exempt" from overtime requirements. Labor
unions claim the figure is about 8 million. The Labor Department is aware
of lawmakers' concerns has read tens of thousands of comments about the
proposal, McCutchen said. "We understand what the public concerns are
and we're going to be doing our best to address them," she said.
"It's important to allow us to finish that process so we can back up
our words with some good-faith action." |
|
More Lawsuits against IP. Big surprise huh?
IP, Georgia-Pacific,
Weyerhaeuser settle suit
NEW YORK, Sept 23 (Reuters) - U.S. paper makers International Paper Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co. and Georgia-Pacific Corp. on Tuesday agreed to pay $68 million
to settle class-action lawsuits alleging they and others conspired to raise
prices on cardboard sheets and boxes.
In a statement, International Paper
said its portion of the settlement is about
In a statement, International Paper
said its portion of the settlement is about $24
million.
The Stamford, Connecticut-based company said it will take an after-tax charge of
2 cents per share in the current quarter for the payment.
Atlanta-based Georgia-Pacific said it plans to take a third-quarter charge of
$13 million, or 5 cents per share, for the settlement. Its total share is about
$21 million.
Weyerhaeuser, based in Federal Way, Washington, will take a third-quarter charge
of $15 million, or 7 cents per share, for its portion of the settlement.
Plaintiffs that opted out of the class action suit prior to the settlement have
recently filed separate cases, which are still pending, against the companies.
The settlement deals with two lawsuits filed in 1999 in federal court in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against several major cardboard and packaging
companies.
The suits alleged the companies "conspired to fix or manipulate the price
of linerboard," which is used to make cardboard containers, Weyerhaeuser
said.
International
Paper has money to burn when it comes to settling lawsuits and litigation but
when it comes to the employees they must cut jobs to show a profit. 24
Million dollars would have gone a long way toward keeping some of our friend's
jobs don't you think? Not to mention it would have been a boost to our health
care or our S&A pay had they have invested it into us
instead of breaking the law and tossing 24
million dollars out the window. There comes a time when you must ask
yourself, do I trust these people to look out for my best interest? If they
break laws that cost them countless millions of dollars, what are they willing
to do to me? You need the protection of a Union Contract to give you at least
some peace of mind. IP has proven time and time again that they will do whatever
to you or against you they can to make a dollar. Make a stand now while we
still have something to stand on! Support
the Union effort, support yourself!
|
|