Business News
SACRAMENTO – California Agriculture Secretary Karen Ross is encouraging members of the California agricultural community to nominate representatives of the state’s fruit and vegetable industry to serve on the nation’s Fruit and Vegetable Advisory Committee for the 2011-13 term.
“As the nation’s leading producer of fruits and vegetables, California should be well-represented on this national committee,” Ross said. “This advisory group helps the United States Department of Agriculture’s leaders pursue policies and programs that meet the needs of this dynamic industry.”
The advisory committee was formed in 2001 to help USDA address issues faced by the fruit and vegetable industry, including helping to tailor the programs of USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).
The USDA secretary will appoint up to 25 representatives from the nation’s fruit and vegetable industry to serve two-three-year terms.
The committee, established under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-463), will include individuals from fruit and vegetable growers/shippers, wholesalers, brokers, retailers, processors, fresh cut processors and food service suppliers.
Individuals from state agencies involved in organic and non-organic fresh fruits and vegetables at local, regional and national levels, state departments of agriculture and trade associations will also be represented.
Written nominations must be received on or before July 20, 2011 and should be sent to Robert C. Keeney, Deputy Administrator, c/o Pamela Stanziani, Designated Federal Officer, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, USDA Room 2077-S, Stop 0235, Washington, D.C. 20250-0235; faxed to (202) 720-0016; or e-mailed to
Details of this notice appeared in the June 27, 2011 issue of the Federal Register.
- Details
- Written by: Editor
"School districts, nonprofits and municipalities in this case were all defrauded by Wall Street," Attorney General Harris said. "This settlement brings a measure of restitution, justice and closure to the victims."
The settlement was based on allegations that JPMC made secret deals with competitors handling the bidding process.
This allegedly illegal conduct included bid-rigging, peeking at competitors' bids and offering non-competitive courtesy bids. These schemes enriched the financial institutions and brokers at the expense of cash strapped state agencies, cities, school districts and non-profits that could ill afford the steep financial consequences of this illegal conduct.
The settlement also provides that JPMC will pay $17 million in restitution directly to certain other government and not-for-profit entities as part of separate agreements it entered into today with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
The state and federal settlements are distinct components of a coordinated global $228 million settlement that JPMC entered into today. JPMC also reached agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Reserve Board.
JPMC is the third financial institution to settle with the multistate working group in the ongoing municipal bond derivatives investigation following Bank of America and UBS AG. To date, the state working group has obtained settlements worth approximately $250 million. California entities are set to receive approximately $6.7 million for restitution under the JPMC settlement.
Municipal bond derivatives are contracts that tax-exempt issuers use to reinvest proceeds of bond sales until the funds are needed, or to hedge interest-rate risk.
In April 2008, the states began investigating allegations that certain large financial institutions, brokers and swap advisors engaged in various schemes to rig bids and commit other deceptive, unfair and fraudulent conduct in the municipal bond derivatives market.
The investigation, which is still ongoing, revealed collusive and deceptive conduct involving individuals at JPMC and other financial institutions, and certain brokers with whom they had working relationships.
The allegedly wrongful conduct took the form of bid-rigging, submission of non-competitive courtesy bids and submission of fraudulent certifications of compliance to government agencies, among others, in contravention of U.S. Treasury regulations.
- Details
- Written by: Editor
How to resolve AdBlock issue?