 |
|
|
|||||
On Thursday morning, Pittsburgh-based Dick’s Sporting Goods announced its plans to acquire footwear and apparel retailer Foot Locker. The two companies have entered into a merger agreement, where Dick’s Sporting Goods will buy Foot Locker for $2.4 billion. Here’s what to know about the deal. How will the deal work? Dicks will finance the merger using a combination of cash-on-hand and new debt. As part of the agreement, Dick’s will acquire Foot Locker’s vast portfolio of brands, including Foot Locker, Kids Foot Locker, Champs Sports, and WSS. Foot Locker currently operates over 2,000 retail stores across the globe. Dick’s will operate Foot Locker as a stand-alone business within its portfolio. How have the companies’ stock prices reacted to the news? Dick’s Sporting Goods shares (NYSE: DKS) were down more than 13% in early-morning trading on Thursday. By contrast, Foot Locker stock (NYSE: FL) jumped more than 82%. In a joint press release, leaders from both companies shared optimism for the planned merger. Dicks CEO Lauren Hobart said, “We look forward to welcoming Foot Locker’s talented team and building upon their expertise and passion for their business.” Hobart continued, “Sports and sports culture continue to be incredibly powerful, and with this acquisition, we’ll create a new global platform that serves those ever evolving needs through iconic concepts consumers know and love.” Foot Locker CEO Mary Dillon said, “By joining forces with DICK’S, Foot Locker will be even better positioned to expand sneaker culture, elevate the omnichannel experience for our customers and brand partners, and enhance our position in the industry.” Tariff pain and broader economic uncertainty The news comes as retailers brace for uncertainty due to President Trump’s tariffs on foreign goods. The vast majority of footwear sold in the U.S. is imported from other countries. Earlier this week, the United States and China reached a trade-war truce. Both countries will temporarily reduce tariff rates for 90 days. However, there is still uncertainty among U.S. retailers due to Trumps erratic and ever-changing trade policies. The merger agreement was unanimously approved by the boards of directors of Dicks and Foot Locker. As part of the agreement, Foot Locker investors can elect to receive $24 in cash or 0.1168 shares of Dicks stock.
Category:
E-Commerce
On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to weaken limits on some harmful “forever chemicals” in drinking water roughly a year after the Biden administration finalized the first-ever national standards.The Biden administration said last year the rules could reduce PFAS exposure for millions of people. It was part of a broader push by officials then to address drinking water quality by writing rules to require the removal of toxic lead pipes and, after years of activist concern, address the threat of forever chemicals.President Donald Trump has sought fewer environmental rules and more oil and gas development. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has carried out that agenda by announcing massive regulatory rollbacks.Now, we know the EPA plans to rescind limits for certain PFAS and lengthen deadlines for two of the most common types. Here are some of the essential things to know about PFAS chemicals and what the EPA decided to do: Please explain what PFAS are to me PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of chemicals that have been around for decades and have now spread into the nation’s air, water and soil.They were manufactured by companies such as 3M, Chemours and others because they were incredibly useful. They helped eggs slide across nonstick frying pans, ensured that firefighting foam suffocates flames and helped clothes withstand the rain and keep people dry.The chemicals resist breaking down, however, which means they stay around in the environment. And why are they bad for humans? Environmental activists say that PFAS manufacturers knew about the health harms of PFAS long before they were made public. The same attributes that make the chemicals so valuableresistance to breakdownmake them hazardous to people.PFAS accumulates in the body, which is why the Biden administration set limits for two common types, often called PFOA and PFOS, at 4 parts per trillion that are phased out of manufacturing but still present in the environment.There is a wide range of health harms now associated with exposure to certain PFAS. Cases of kidney disease, low-birth weight and high cholesterol in addition to certain cancers can be prevented by removing PFAS from water, according to the EPA.The guidance on PFOA and PFOS has changed dramatically in recent years as scientific understanding has advanced. The EPA in 2016, for example, said the combined amount of the two substances should not exceed 70 parts per trillion. The Biden administration later said no amount is safe. There is nuance in what the EPA did The EPA plans to scrap limits on three types of PFAS, some of which are less well known. They include GenX substances commonly found in North Carolina as well as substances called PFHxS and PFNA. There is also a limit on a mixture of PFAS, which the agency is also planning to rescind.It appears few utilities will be impacted by the withdrawal of limits for these types of PFAS. So far, sampling has found nearly 12% of U.S. water utilities are above the Biden administration’s limits. But most utilities face problems with PFOA or PFOS.For the two commonly found types, PFOA and PFOS, the EPA will keep the current limits in place but give utilities two more yearsuntil 2031to meet them. Announcement is met with mixed reaction Some environmental groups argue that the EPA can’t legally weaken the regulations. The Safe Water Drinking Act gives the EPA authority to limit water contaminants, and it includes a provision meant to prevent new rules from being looser than previous ones.“The law is very clear that the EPA can’t repeal or weaken the drinking water standard,” said Erik Olson, a senior strategist at the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council.Environmental activists have generally slammed the EPA for not keeping the Biden-era rules in place, saying it will worsen public health.Industry had mixed reactions. The American Chemistry Council questioned the Biden administration’s underlying science that supported the tight rules and said the Trump administration had considered the concerns about cost and the underlying science.“However, EPA’s actions only partially address this issue, and more is needed to prevent significant impacts on local communities and other unintended consequences,” the industry group said.Leaders of two major utility industry groups, the American Water Works Association and Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, said they supported the EPA’s decision to rescind a novel approach to limit a mix of chemicals. But they also said the changes do not substantially reduce the cost of the PFAS rule.Some utilities wanted a higher limit on PFOA and PFOS, according to Mark White, drinking water leader at the engineering firm CDM Smith. They did, however, get an extension. “This gives water pros more time to deal with the ones we know are bad, and we are going to need more time. Some utilities are just finding out now where they stand,” said Mike McGill, president of WaterPIO, a water industry communications firm. The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment Michael Phillis, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
U.S. President Donald Trumps plan to accept a $400 million airplane from Qatar raises a raft of questions about the scope of laws that relate to gifts from foreign governments and are intended to thwart corruption and improper influence, legal experts said. Below is a look at some of the laws and legal precedents: WHAT DOES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION SAY? There are two provisions in the U.S Constitution that place restrictions on the president receiving an emolument, or gift, from foreign governments or from federal or state governments. One provision states that Congress must approve any gift from a “King, Prince, or foreign State” to an elected official in the United States. The other, referred to as the “domestic” emoluments clause, prohibits the president from receiving a gift beyond salary for the job. Congress has expressly approved gifts from foreign governments in the past. In 1877, Congress accepted the Statue of Liberty as a gift from France. The foreign emoluments clause did not bar President Barack Obama in 2009 from receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, which included $1.4 million in cash, without congressional consent. A memo from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel determined the prize did not violate the Constitution because the Norwegian Nobel Committee is not a King, Prince, or foreign State. Obama donated the money to charity. WHO CAN ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS? That’s unclear, and the Supreme Court has not addressed the question, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. Legal experts said members of Congress, U.S. states and even potentially some private businesses could try to sue the president if they believe a gift violates the foreign Emoluments Clause, but they face challenges. U.S. courts require plaintiffs to have legal “standing” to bring claims, meaning they must be the proper party to bring the case, which is a threshold issue for any litigation to advance. WHAT HAVE U.S. COURTS SAID ABOUT EMOLUMENTS? Until Trump’s first term, there had not been substantial litigation over the clauses, and even the meaning of the term “emolument” is a matter of legal dispute. Democratic members of Congress sued Trump in 2017 after his global businesses allegedly received payments from foreign governments, including when Kuwait hosted an event at the Trump International Hotel in Washington. That case was dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which said the 215 members of Congress lacked standing to sue as an institution because they did not comprise a majority. Republicans controlled both houses of Congress at the time, as they do now. The U.S. Supreme Court declined in October 2020 to review that ruling. Attorneys general for Maryland and the District of Columbia also jointly brought an emoluments cases related to Trump’s businesses during his first term. Their case was dismissed by a panel of three judges, appointed by Republican presidents, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, also for a lack of standing. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit determined in 2019 that restaurants and hotels in New York and Washington had standing to bring an emoluments lawsuit claiming they were harmed by Trump’s competing businesses. The case was dismissed without addressing the merits when Trump left office after losing his the 2020 election. DO OTHER U.S. LAWS GOVERN FOREIGN GIFTS? The Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act sets requirements for gifts and allows the president to keep any that are worth less than $480. Gifts worth more than $480 may be accepted on behalf of United States, which retains ownership. Presidents are allowed to keep gifts above the threshold level if they reimburse the government for the fair market cost. Mike Scarcella and Tom Hals, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||