The Susan G. Komen Foundation cut off Planned Parenthood funding for breast cancer screening. According to the New York Times , this is their reasoning:
A spokeswoman for the Komen foundation, Leslie Aun, told The Associated Press that the main factor in the decision was a new rule adopted by Komen that prohibits grants to organizations being investigated by local, state or federal authorities.
Let's look at some of SGK's principal sponsors, and see just who is under investigation these days.
Kudos to Georgia Letothetis, who is also publishing on this topic on DK.
Also related: some of SGK's other grantees are Under Investigation!
SGK's top donors are its Million Dollar Council Elite members:
The Komen Million Dollar Council Elite is a special group of sponsors and partners who have committed to invest a financial contribution of $1 million annually in the fight to end breast cancer. Each of these organizations has found new and innovative ways to raise awareness about breast cancer and encourage people from all walks of life to get involved in finding the cures. We thank them for their generous support.
Let's look at some of the biggest names on their top donor list:
For starters, American Airlines
From American Airlines' latest Quarterly Report to Shareholders (10Q):
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
On February 14, 2006, the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) served the Company with a grand jury subpoena as part of an ongoing investigation into possible criminal violations of the antitrust laws by certain domestic and foreign air cargo carriers. At this time, the Company does not believe it is a target of the DOJ investigation. The New Zealand Commerce Commission notified the Company on February 17, 2006 that it is investigating whether the Company and certain other cargo carriers entered into agreements relating to fuel surcharges, security surcharges, war-risk surcharges, and customs clearance surcharges. On February 22, 2006, the Company received a letter from the Swiss Competition Commission informing the Company that it is investigating whether the Company and certain other cargo carriers entered into agreements relating to fuel surcharges, security surcharges, war-risk surcharges, and customs clearance surcharges. On March 11, 2008, the Company received a request for information from the Swiss Competition Commission concerning, among other things, the scope and organization of the Company’s activities in Switzerland. On June 27, 2007 and October 31, 2007, the Company received requests for information from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission seeking information regarding fuel surcharges imposed by the Company on cargo shipments to and from Australia and regarding the structure of the Company’s cargo operations. On September 1, 2008, the Company received a request from the Korea Fair Trade Commission seeking information regarding cargo rates and surcharges and the structure of the Company’s activities in Korea. On January 23, 2007, the Brazilian competition authorities, as part of an ongoing investigation, conducted an unannounced search of the Company’s cargo facilities in Sao Paulo, Brazil. On April 24, 2008, the Brazilian competition authorities charged the Company with violating Brazilian competition laws. On December 31, 2009, the Brazilian competition authorities made a non-binding recommendation to the Brazilian competition tribunal that it find the Company in violation of competition laws. The authorities are investigating whether the Company and certain other foreign and domestic air carriers violated Brazilian competition laws by illegally conspiring to set fuel surcharges on cargo shipments. The Company is vigorously contesting the allegations and the preliminary findings of the Brazilian competition authorities. On December 19, 2006 and June 12, 2007, the Company received requests for information from the European Commission seeking information regarding the Company’s corporate structure, and revenue and pricing announcements for air cargo shipments to and from the European Union. On December 18, 2007, the European Commission issued a Statement of Objection (SO) against 26 airlines, including the Company. The SO alleges that these carriers participated in a conspiracy to set surcharges on cargo shipments in violation of EU law. On November 12, 2010, the EU Commission notified the Company that it was closing its proceedings against the Company without imposing any fine or finding any wrongdoing. The Company intends to cooperate fully with all pending investigations. In the event that any investigations uncover violations of the U.S. antitrust laws or the competition laws of some other jurisdiction, or if the Company were named and found liable in any litigation based on these allegations, such findings and related legal proceedings could have a material adverse impact on the Company. Forty-five purported class action lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. against the Company and certain foreign and domestic air carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges on cargo shipments. These cases, along with other purported class action lawsuits in which the Company was not named, were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York as In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation , 06-MD-1775 on June 20, 2006. Plaintiffs are seeking trebled money damages and injunctive relief. To facilitate a settlement on a class basis, the company agreed to be named in a separate class action complaint, which was filed on July 26, 2010. The settlement of that complaint, in which the company does not admit and denies liability, was approved by the court and final judgment was entered on April 6, 2011. Approximately 40 members of the class have elected to opt out, thereby preserving their rights to sue the Company separately. Any adverse judgment could have a material adverse impact on the Company. Also, on January 23, 2007, the Company was served with a purported class action complaint filed against the Company, American, and certain foreign and domestic air carriers in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Canada ( McKay v. Ace Aviation Holdings, et al .). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated Canadian competition laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges on cargo shipments. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages under Canadian law. On June 22, 2007, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims against the Company. The dismissal is without prejudice and the Company could be brought back into the litigation at a future date. If litigation is recommenced against the Company in the Canadian courts, the Company will vigorously defend itself; however, any adverse judgment could have a material adverse impact on the Company.
On June 20, 2006, DOJ served the Company with a grand jury subpoena as part of an ongoing investigation into possible criminal violations of the antitrust laws by certain domestic and foreign passenger carriers. At this time, the Company does not believe it is a target of the DOJ investigation. The Company intends to cooperate fully with this investigation. On September 4, 2007, the Attorney General of the State of Florida served the Company with a Civil Investigative Demand as part of its investigation of possible violations of federal and Florida antitrust laws regarding the pricing of air passenger transportation. In the event that this or other investigations uncover violations of the U.S. antitrust laws or the competition laws of some other jurisdiction, such findings and related legal proceedings could have a material adverse impact on the Company. Approximately 52 purported class action lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. against the Company and certain foreign and domestic air carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges for passenger transportation. On October 25, 2006, these cases, along with other purported class action lawsuits in which the Company was not named, were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California as In re International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust Litigation , Civ. No. 06-1793 (the Passenger MDL). On July 9, 2007, the Company was named as a defendant in the Passenger MDL. On August 25, 2008, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against the Company in this action. On March 13, 2008, and March 14, 2008, an additional purported class action complaint, Turner v. American Airlines, et al., Civ. No. 08-1444 (N.D. Cal.), was filed against the Company, alleging that the Company violated U.S. antitrust laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges for passenger transportation in Japan and certain European countries, respectively. The Turner plaintiffs have failed to perfect service against the Company, and it is unclear whether they intend to pursue their claims. In the event that the Turner plaintiffs pursue their claims, the Company will vigorously defend these lawsuits, but any adverse judgment in these actions could have a material adverse impact on the Company.
Bank of America
From Bank of America's most recent Annual Report to Shareholders (10K):
Interesting opening comment:
In the ordinary course of business, the Corporation and its subsidiaries are also subject to regulatory examinations, information gathering requests, inquiries and investigations. Certain subsidiaries of the Corporation are registered broker/dealers or investment advisors and are subject to regulation by the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the New York Stock Exchange, the FSA and other domestic, international and state securities regulators. In connection with formal and informal inquiries by those agencies, such subsidiaries receive numerous requests, subpoenas and orders for documents, testimony and information in connection with various aspects of their regulated activities.
Looking only at government investigations or litigation (out of a plethora of private cases):
NYAG Action
On February 4, 2010, the New York Attorney General (NYAG) filed a civil complaint in the Supreme Court of New York State, entitled People of the State of New York v. Bank of America, et al . The complaint names as defendants the Corporation and the Corporation’s former CEO and CFO, and alleges violations of Sections 352, 352-c(1)(a), 352-c(1)(c), and 353 of the New York General Business Law, commonly known as the Martin Act, and Section 63(12) of the New York Executive Law. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount in disgorgement, penalties, restitution, and damages and other equitable relief. The court has ordered fact discovery to be complete by September 30, 2011.
Regulatory Investigations
In addition to the MBS litigation discussed beginning on page 201, the Corporation has also received a number of subpoenas and other informal requests for information from federal regulators regarding MBS matters, including inquiries related to the Corporation’s underwriting and issuance of MBS and its participation in certain CDO offerings.
Municipal Derivatives Matters
The SEC, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Reserve and a Working Group of State Attorneys General (the Working Group) have investigated the Corporation, BANA and BAS concerning possible anticompetitive practices in the municipal derivatives industry dating back to the early 1990s. These investigations have focused on the bidding practices for guaranteed investment contracts, the investment vehicles in which the proceeds of municipal bond offerings are deposited, as well as other types of derivative transactions related to municipal bonds. On January 11, 2007, the Corporation entered a Corporate Conditional Leniency Letter with the DOJ, under which the DOJ agreed not to prosecute the Corporation for criminal antitrust violations in connection with matters the Corporation has reported to the DOJ, subject to the Corporation’s continued cooperation. On December 7, 2010, the Corporation and its affiliates settled inquiries with the SEC, OCC, IRS and the Working Group for an aggregate amount that is not material to the Corporation’s results of operations. In addition, the Corporation entered into an agreement with the Federal Reserve providing for additional oversight and compliance risk management.
General Mills
As stated in its most recent Annual Report to Shareholders (10K):
ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
As of May 29, 2011, we were involved with three active cleanup sites associated with the alleged or threatened release of hazardous substances or wastes located in: Sauget, Illinois; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Moonachie, New Jersey. These matters involve several different actions, including administrative proceedings commenced by regulatory agencies and demand letters by regulatory agencies and private parties.
We recognize that our potential exposure with respect to any of these sites may be joint and several, but have concluded that our probable aggregate exposure is not material to our consolidated financial position or cash flows from operations. This conclusion is based upon, among other things: our payments and accruals with respect to each site; the number, ranking and financial strength of other potentially responsible parties; the status of the proceedings, including various settlement agreements, consent decrees, or court orders; allocations of volumetric waste contributions and allocations of relative responsibility among potentially responsible parties developed by regulatory agencies and by private parties; remediation cost estimates prepared by governmental authorities or private technical consultants; and our historical experience in negotiating and settling disputes with respect to similar sites.
Caterpillar
As stated in its most recent Quarterly Report to Shareholders (10Q):
On May 14, 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Notice of Violation to Caterpillar Inc., alleging various violations of Clean Air Act Sections 203, 206 and 207. EPA claims that Caterpillar violated such sections by shipping engines and catalytic converter after-treatment devices separately, introducing into commerce a number of uncertified and/or misbuilt engines, and failing to timely report emissions-related defects. On July 9, 2010, the Department of Justice issued a penalty demand to Caterpillar seeking a civil penalty of $3.2 million and implementation of injunctive relief involving expanded use of certain technologies. On July 28, 2011, EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice filed and lodged a civil complaint and consent decree with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Court) regarding the matter. Caterpillar has agreed to the terms of the consent decree, which require payment of a civil penalty of $2.55 million, retirement of a small number of emissions credits and expanded defect-related reporting. On September 7, 2011, the Court entered the consent decree, making it effective on that date, and Caterpillar has paid the penalty due to the United States in accordance with the decree terms. Under the terms of the consent decree, and subject to a settlement agreement, $510,000 of the stipulated $2.55 million penalty will be paid to the California Air Resources Board relating to engines covered by the consent decree that were placed into service in California.
On February 8, 2009, an incident at Caterpillar’s Joliet, Illinois facility resulted in the release of approximately 3,000 gallons of wastewater into the Des Plaines River. In coordination with state and federal authorities, appropriate remediation measures have been taken. On February 23, 2009, the Illinois Attorney General filed a Complaint in Will County Circuit Court containing seven counts of violations of state environmental laws and regulations. Caterpillar settled this matter with the State of Illinois in 2010, resolving all allegations in the Complaint. This settlement does not have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations, financial position, or liquidity. In addition, on March 5, 2009, the EPA served Caterpillar with a Notice of Intent to file a Civil Administrative Action (notice), indicating the EPA’s intent to seek civil penalties for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act and Oil Pollution Act. On January 25, 2010, the EPA issued a revised notice seeking civil penalties in the amount of $167,800. Caterpillar settled this matter with the EPA on July 12, 2011, resolving all allegations in the notice. This settlement did not have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or liquidity.
In May 2010, an incident at Caterpillar’s Gosselies, Belgium facility resulted in the release of wastewater into the Perupont River. In coordination with local authorities, appropriate remediation measures have been taken. In January 2011, Caterpillar learned that the public prosecutor for the Belgian administrative district of Charleroi had referred the matter to an examining magistrate of the civil court of Charleroi for further investigation. Caterpillar is cooperating with the Belgian authorities on this investigation. At this time, it is unlikely that penalties will be assessed, and any penalties are unlikely to exceed $100,000. Management does not believe this matter will have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations, financial position or liquidity.