Premier Foods bidder McCormick evaluating finer points of pension scheme
* Size of pension still prime risk
* Non-public information not seen as material by independent consultant
McCormick’s [LON:MKC] due diligence on Premier Foods’ [LON:PFD] pension scheme is down to the scheme’s “framework,” a person briefed and an independent pensions consultant said.
McCormick announced last week that the target's pension scheme, along with current trading and material contracts, was one of three outstanding concerns for its 65p per share possible offer.
The scheme’s “framework and how it is set up” remains the only unknown on pensions for the bidder, said the person briefed. As the two companies hold negotiations, McCormick is sifting through the finer points of the scheme’s non-public details, said the person briefed and a source close to the deal.
The only aspects of Premier’s pensions that would not yet be publicly known are the legal-trust deed and an actuarial valuation of the scheme, said pensions consultant John Ralfe.
The implications of the legal-trust deed would be marginal for McCormick’s picture of the pension scheme, he said. The actuarial valuation could result in slightly more precise numbers but would not have a profound effect, said Ralfe. If McCormick had not been put off by what it already knows of Premier’s pensions, McCormick would be unlikely to change its mind on bidding for the company, Ralfe said.
While there is little that McCormick does not already know about Premier’s pensions, these issues could give them an excuse to walk away if negotiations do not turn in their favour before the put-up-or-shut-up deadline on 21 April, he said.
The real risk to a deal is the size of Premier’s pension liability, Ralfe said. Premier has a massive underlying pension of GBP 4bn, or 10 times its undisturbed market cap, Ralfe noted. McCormick is “putting their head above the parapet” in taking on Premier’s pensions, he added.
Rising interest rates could slightly mitigate Premier’s GBP 390m pension deficit — the net present value of its pension scheme’s projected shortfall — in coming years, an independent sector advisor suggested. Still, Ralfe noted that this consideration should pale next to the size of the pension scheme relative to Premier’s business itself, said Ralfe.
A minority Premier shareholder also agreed McCormick’s offer was surprising given the sheer mass of the pension scheme. The capital structure of the company prevents a purely financial bidder from mounting a bid, as opposed to an industry peer seeking commercial synergies, admitted a second Premier minority shareholder.
McCormick has noted the anxiety among Premier shareholders, said the source. This news service previously reported that Premier investors nevertheless anticipate a final bid well above the current bid.
McCormick and Premier Foods did not respond to request for comment.
See Fed fund future prob.
{WIRP<GO>}
Nearly 75% surveyed expect the next Fed rate rise to come at the central bank’s June meeting
Most private forecasters surveyed expect the Federal Reserve will leave short-term interest rates unchanged at its April policy meeting, and next raise them in June.
Nearly 75% of business and academic economists polled by The Wall Street Journal in recent days said the Fed would next raise its benchmark federal-funds rate at its June 14-15 policy meeting, down slightly from 76% in the Journal’s March survey.
Forecasters assigned minimal chances to the Fed acting at its policy meeting in less than three weeks’ time. Just one economist in the survey predicted Fed officials would lift rates at the April 26-27 meeting, compared with four in the March survey. The Journal surveyed 69 economists Friday through Tuesday, though not every respondent answered every question.
Financial markets also doubt the Fed will move this month, with fed-funds futures on Wednesday afternoon suggesting just a 3.5% chance of an April rate increase, according to CME Group.
Asked to gauge the probability of an April rate increase, on average economists said 11%. They assigned a 55% probability to an increase in June.
“It makes little sense for the Fed to hike rates more quickly when wage growth remains lackluster and with an economy that’s still moving way below highway speed,” said Bernard Baumohl of the Economic Outlook Group, a forecasting and analysis firm.
The Fed in December raised its benchmark federal-funds rate to a range of 0.25% to 0.50% after holding it near zero for seven years, and pledged to raise it gradually in coming years. It held rates steady at its policy gatherings in January and March, citing weak inflation and global economic and financial uncertainty.
Fed officials at their March meeting expected to raise the fed-funds rate by a half a percentage point this year. That implies a slower pace than they predicted in December, when they penciled in a total increase of a full percentage point by year’s end.
“Given the risks to the outlook, I consider it appropriate for the committee to proceed cautiously in adjusting policy,” Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen said March 29 before the Economic Club of New York.
The private forecasters on average saw the fed-funds rate at 0.84% at the end of 2016, suggesting two quarter-point rate increases this year.
Fewer than 6% of the economists surveyed expect the Fed to next lift rates at its July meeting, and fewer than 9% expect the next move in September.
Just one economist—Bricklin Dwyer of BNP Paribas—said officials would wait until after 2017 to raise rates, while Vanderbilt University professor J. Dewey Daane said he wasn’t expecting another rate increase.
Market expectations for rate increases in the coming months also have dwindled: Fed-funds futures indicate a roughly 20% likelihood of a rate increase in June.
ECB's Draghi: Euro area recovery is currently proceeding at moderate pace - comments in Lisbon
- must act quickly to avoid creating a lost generation
- will take time for latest measures to start working their way through the economy and deliver full benefits
- should avoid fiscal rules being stretched to a point where they lose credibility; ECB decisions help maintain a trust in the currency
- there is no case for unraveling past reforms in Europe
BNP Plans IPO of First Hawaiian Bank
Offer could raise $1 billion, value First Hawaiian at $4 billion to $5 billion
French Bank BNP Paribas SA is planning to launch an initial public offering of its First Hawaiian Bank subsidiary as early as June, as more companies gear up for share sales that will determine whether the new-issue market can break out of its malaise.
First Hawaiian, the island state’s oldest and largest bank, would seek to raise roughly $1 billion in an offering valuing it at between $4 billion and $5 billion, according to people familiar with the matter.
Should the IPO go as planned, it could be the largest in 2016, a year that has been notable for its dearth of debuts. It would also be the largest U.S. bank IPO since Citizens Financial Group Inc. went public in a $3 billion offering in 2014, and the sixth-largest U.S. bank IPO since Dealogic began keeping records in 1995.
Other companies that are getting ready to test IPO demand include Bats Global Markets Inc., an exchange operator that is seeking to raise up to $212.8 million and is on its so-called roadshow for potential investors; and SecureWorks, a cybersecurity firm owned by Dell Inc.
Successful debuts by these companies could signal a thawing in an IPO market that has been beset by zigzagging share prices and other challenges. Only nine companies went public in the first quarter, raising $1.2 billion in total, the slowest period for IPOs since 2009.
Though many bank stocks have performed poorly this year, First Hawaiian and its underwriters at Bank of America Corp. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. are sure to be heartened by the performance of its primary competitor, Bank of Hawaii Corp. As of Wednesday’s close, its shares are up 7% in 2016, while the KBW Nasdaq Bank Index is down 13%.
KBW analyst Jacquelynne Chimera called Hawaii “one of the most enviable deposit markets in the United States” in a report released in February. She describes the Hawaiian consumer-banking market as a “true oligopoly,” with the top four banks controlling 92% of the market. With an absence of large national players, the banks “do not generally resort to such antics as irrational deposit pricing.”
On a note of caution, Citizens, owned by Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, broke below its IPO price of $21.50 earlier this year, and remains there.
First Hawaiian was founded in 1858. With $19 billion in assets, it ranked 65th among U.S. banks as of Dec. 31, according to the Federal Reserve. BNP has said it is considering strategic alternatives for First Hawaiian, including an IPO, as the French bank seeks to bolster its capital cushion. It had initially hoped to start its roadshow in early May but that plan was delayed because the bank needed to clear regulatory hurdles first, some of the people said.
First Hawaiian will complete its 2016 Federal Reserve “stress test” and seek regulators’ blessing of its capital-return plans before launching the deal, they added.
First Hawaiian is one of two U.S. subsidiaries of BNP, France’s largest listed bank by assets. BNP has never integrated First Hawaiian with its other U.S. holding, Bank of the West, one of the people said.
BNP is pursuing an IPO rather than a sale because there are few strategic buyers for the bank, one person said. Many big foreign banks don’t have the capital, while those in the U.S. don’t see Hawaii as strategic, the person added.
RTRS - LISBON-ECB'S DRAGHI SAYS EURO AREA RECOVERY IS CURRENTLY PROCEEDING AT A MODERATE PACE
Hagens Berman: Mercedes Owners File New Lawsuit Stating Mercedes BlueTEC Diesels Fail Emissions Tests in Nearly All Real World Conditions DAIGn.DE - Business Wire
07-APR-2016 15:38:00
NEWARK, N.J.--(Business Wire)--
Today, owners of Mercedes BlueTEC diesel automobiles from 13 states filed an amended class-action lawsuit against Mercedes-Benz USA stating the automaker knowingly programmed its BlueTEC vehicles to release illegal levels of emissions in virtually all real world driving conditions and likely contain a "defeat device" used to cheat emissions testing, according to consumer-rights law firm,Hagens Berman.
"Testing at highway speeds, at low temperatures, and at variable speeds, indicate a systemic failure to meet emissions standards. Low temperature testing at highway speeds for example, produced emissions that were 8.1 to 19.7 times the highway emissions standard," according to the suit, filed Apr. 7, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. "In virtually every road test the emissions were hardly as Mercedes promised as `the world`s cleanest and most advanced diesel...` Mercedes vehicles do not meet emission standards in virtually all real world driving conditions."
The lawsuit adds that testing at low temperatures at variable speeds produced emissions as high as 30.8 times the standard.
The complaint accuses Mercedes of deceiving consumers with false representations of its BlueTEC vehicles, which it marketed as "earth-friendly."
Mercedes sold BlueTEC vehicles with the promise that they were "earth-friendly," and equipped with "environmentally friendly technology," and the vehicles went "beyond statutory requirements."
The lawsuit alleges that the following Mercedes models powered by BlueTEC diesel-fueled engines are affected by the unlawful, unfair, deceptive and otherwise defective emission controls utilized by Mercedes. Contact Hagens Berman to find out your rights, if you purchased or leased one of the following affected BlueTEC vehicles:
? ML 320 ? R320 ? S Class
? ML 350 ? E Class ? GLK Class
? GL 320 ? GL Class ? GLE Class
? E320 ? ML Class ? Sprinter
? S350 ? R Class
Mercedes owners and lessors can also find more information about the case at Hagens Berman`s Mercedes Owners Hub, including an FAQ about the Mercedes emissions lawsuit.
Cheating Emissions Tests
"When put to the test of real world conditions, Mercedes` `clean` diesel cars fail at nearly every opportunity to live up to the ecofriendly branding Mercedes plastered onto these vehicles," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman. "According to our research, all signs point to Mercedes installing a defeat device, similar to what Volkswagen implemented, to cheat emissions tests. We intend to unveil everything Mercedes knows."
The suit states that the fact that Mercedes passed the dynamometer test in all testing done by European researchers, but failed the real world test - both in Europe and U.S. test results - is suggestive that like VW, Mercedes is implementing a "defeat device."
In a letter Berman sent to Mercedes` Dr. Dieter Zetsche, chairman of the board of management of Daimler AG, head of Mercedes-Benz Daimler AG, he stated, "We have uncovered your deception. Now it is time for you to do right by your customers, the U.S. government, and the American people."
"Every day I hear from another Mercedes customer who feels betrayed by your scam," the letter reads. "Correcting this fraud should be priority-one. To that end, I invite you to sit down with me in the next two weeks to craft a remediation plan. I believe we can work together to create a comprehensive remedy that compensates your customers fairly and allows Mercedes to move forward after this shameful deception."
A study cited in the complaint conducted by TNO for the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment states that, in real world testing, the Mercedes C-Class 220 emits NOx at levels much higher than in controlled dynamometer tests, adding that, "In most circumstances arising in normal situations on the road, the systems scarcely succeed in any effective reduction of NOx emissions."
"The consumers bringing this lawsuit against Mercedes have tested the vehicles in real world conditions, only to find pollution at high levels in nearly all conditions, including downhill driving and at various speeds and temperatures," Berman added. "Mercedes took advantage of consumers` trust. It appears as though the aggressive `greenwashing` marketing tactics Mercedes used for its BlueTEC vehicles were merely a veil to conceal its dirty diesel vehicles from eco-conscious consumers."
The suit seeks relief for those who purchased the affected vehicles, including injunctive relief in the form of a recall or free replacement program and restitution including either recovery of the purchase price or overpayment or diminution in value due to Mercedes` misleading statements and omissions regarding the emission levels of its Clean Diesel BlueTEC vehicles.
The suit alleges that Mercedes` actions violated numerous state consumer-rights laws including the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, Connecticut`s Unfair Trade Practices Act and laws of other states. The suit also states that the automaker`s omissions and misrepresentations constitute breach of contract and fraudulent concealment.
Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against Mercedes.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is a consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities. The firm has been named to the National Law Journal`s Plaintiffs` Hot List eight times. More about the law firm and its successes can be found at http://www.hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw.
Renault réduit les émissions de ses Diesel
{http://www.autonews.fr/dossiers/industrie/210054-diesel-renault-normes-pollution/}
Face à l’ampleur prise par le scandale Volkswagen à l’automne dernier, le gouvernement français avait mis en place une série de tests visant à contrôler la pollution réelle des véhicules vendus en France. Renault s’était alors illustré parmi les mauvais élèves, avec des rejets de NOx supérieurs aux seuils annoncés pour ses Espace et Captur. Afin de remettre les choses en ordre, la firme au losange annonce aujourd’hui les actions mises en place pour réduire les émissions d’oxyde d’azote de ses véhicules Euro 6b « en usage client » (reconnaissant pudiquement par là que les rejets ne sont pas les mêmes lors d’une utilisation normale et durant les tests d’homologation).
À partir de juillet 2016, les véhicules diesel Euro 6b recevront ainsi certaines modifications par rapport à ceux produits auparavant : un élargissement de la plage de fonctionnement des systèmes EGR et un pilotage du piège à NOx (qui stocke et traite à intervalles réguliers les oxydes d’azote) plus performant. Renault annonce que « ces actions combinées amèneront en moyenne, selon les applications et le type de roulage, une division par deux des oxydes d’azote sur la zone d’extension de l’EGR. » Enfin, à partir d’octobre 2016, les véhicules Euro 6b déjà commercialisés pourront également être modifiés sans frais, « via un simple passage dans le réseau« .
A la fin de son communiqué, Renault se veut rassurant en rappelant que « tous ses véhicules sont homologués selon les normes en vigueur » et que le plan présenté aujourd’hui constitue surtout une première étape vers la future norme Euro 6d (qui fixera des valeurs maximales d’émissions polluantes en usage réel). Tout en admettant que certains de ses véhicules ont des émissions polluantes trop élevées une fois sortis des bancs d’essai, la marque se plaide donc pas coupable.
Diesel : les résultats des 50 premiers tests de la commission Royal
EXCLUSIF - Aucun modèle ne parvient à respecter les limites d’émission fixées par la commission Royal. La commission, qui se réunit aujourd’hui, doit établir des recommandations.
Carton plein. La commission technique, nommée par Ségolène Royal dans la foulée du scandale Volkswagen, et chargée de vérifier que d’autres constructeurs n’ont pas intégré de logiciels manipulant les tests d’émission de polluants, présente aujourd’hui les résultats des 50 premiers véhicules testés. Le bilan, qui doit être présenté ce jeudi aux membres de la commission et que « Les Echos » se sont procuré, est sans appel. Aucun des véhicules ne respecte les limites d’émission des différents tests établis par le protocole d’essai mis en place par l’UTAC, l’organisme chargé en France de tester les homologations des véhicules. Que ce soit au niveau des rejets de dioxide d’azote (Nox) que de C02, également testé par la commission.
Dans le détail, 52 modèles ont été évalués. PSA (15 modèles) et Renault (13 avec Dacia) sont logiquement les plus concernés devant Volkswagen (5), Ford (4), Mercedes et Opel (3), et autres Toyota, Nissan, Fiat, Audi, BMW... Tandis que 29 véhicules obéissent aux normes antipollution Euro 4 et Euro 5, déjà mises en place depuis plusieurs années, 23 autres sont estampillés Euro 6, c’est à dire la réglementation européenne la plus récente, généralisée depuis septembre 2015 pour les modèles neufs, et qui doit réduire drastiquement les niveaux de rejets de dioxyde d’azote (Nox). L’ensemble de ces véhicules était testé selon trois modes opératoires différents, différents de la réglementation européenne officielle (NEDC). Le premier test, baptisé D1, et qui visait à leurrer un éventuel logiciel de manipulation du test via différentes astuces (modification de la position du capot, passage de la marche arrière...). Le second, D2, devait également tromper un test de manipulation en modifiant le cycle habituel de test. (conditionnement de la voiture...). Enfin, le troisième est mené sur route, en condition réelle.
Sans surprise, les tests menés sur route ont été très défavorables aux constructeurs, notamment en termes d’émission de NoX. 21 modèles ont ainsi affiché des émissions de NOx plus de cinq fois supérieures à la limite établie par l’UTAC. Alors que les voitures commercialisées par les industriels doivent uniquement se conformer à des tests menés en laboratoire, ce type d’essai en condition réelle fait apparaître combien les systèmes de dépollution sont peu efficaces dans la vie de tous les jours... Plus surprenant est l’échec de nombreux constructeurs aux deux premiers tests. On apprend ainsi que 13 véhicules ont échoué aux tests D1 - qui autorisent un dépassement inférieur à 10 % comparé aux normes légales - , et 14 aux tests D2. Les 23 véhicules Euro 6, plus modernes, testés par la commission, n’échappent pas à la tendance, et notamment ceux équipés de technologies Nox Trap, comme Renault ou Opel, qui sont les plus concernés.
Plusieurs constructeurs (Renault, Opel, Mercedes, Ford, Fiat, Volkswagen...) ont déjà été convoqués par la commission Royal pour s’expliquer sur ces décalages. Renault lui-même fait l’objet d’une enquête de la DGCCRF, sont les conclusions devraient être remises d’ici l’été. Le constructeur, tout comme les autres, a toujours répété qu’il respectait les normes légales passées en laboratoire, et qu’il ne trichait pas. Du reste, les tests menés par la commission n’ont pas de valeur légale, puisqu’ils sont différents de ceux sur lesquels sont jugés les industriels et qu’ils intègrent différents paramètres (conditionnement de la voiture) qui peuvent impacter les niveaux d’émission... Ce qui n’a pas empêché Renault de mettre en place un plan d’action afin d’améliorer ses systèmes de dépollution , qui se révèlent trop court du point de vue technologique.
La commission Royal se réunit cet après midi pour examiner ces résultats. « L’idée est d’établir des recommandations et un plan d’action » indique une source du dossier. La mise en place, à partir de 2017, de la procédure RDE, prenant davantage en compte la conduite réelle, est une première réponse. Mais les pouvoirs publics pourraient aller plus loin. La commission devrait rendre, d’ici l’été, un rapport comportant différentes préconisations.
@Maxamiot