Shares Of Hazmat-Suit Maker Spike On NYC Ebola News

Shares in a company that makes hazmat suits soared 16 percent on Thursday after the first case of Ebola was diagnosed in New York City.

The stock price of Long Island-based Lakeland Industries, which makes various types of protective garb, has more than doubled in the past month amid feverish news coverage of the deadly virus. The stock jumped from less than $7 a share in late September to as high as $29 on October 13, when Ebola panic in the U.S. was particularly high.

Shares have drifted lower since then, but got another boost on Thursday afternoon after the news that Dr. Craig Spencer, a physician who recently returned to New York from treating patients in Guinea, had been hospitalized with Ebola symptoms. Later on Thursday he became the fourth person in the United States to be diagnosed with the virus.

The spike in stock price came after the first case of Ebola was confirmed in New York.

“We’ve been getting a lot of calls in the last 24 hours,” Jordan Darrow, a spokesman for Lakeland, told The Huffington Post on Friday morning. “We’ve been getting a lot of calls for the last three months.”

He declined to comment on sales of hazmat suits.

Last month, Lakeland said it was increasing production to meet heightened demand for the suits, which cover the whole body. Ebola is spread only through direct contact with bodily fluids -- such as blood, vomit or feces -- of an infected person.

“We hope our added capacity will help alleviate that problem,” Christopher J. Ryan, the president and chief executive of Lakeland, said in a statement last month. “With the U.S. State Department alone putting out a bid for 160,000 suits, we encourage all protective apparel companies to increase their manufacturing capacity for sealed seam garments so that our industry can do its part in addressing this threat to global health.”

Lakeland’s stock fell about 4 percent in early trading Friday morning, to about $14.

Paul Krugman: 'Soak The Rich'

Paul Krugman is on board with some other top economists who say that the U.S. should tax top earners up to 90 percent.

"What you really should want to do is to soak the rich as much as possible," Krugman said in an appearance on HuffPost Live Wednesday afternoon. "So the top tax rates should be whatever it is that collects the most revenue, and now the question is, how high is that?"

The Nobel Prize-winning economist was asked about a new working paper by economists Fabian Kindermann and Dirk Krueger, which found that a top marginal income tax rate of 85 to 90 percent would improve all Americans' wellbeing, reduce inequality and bring in more revenue for the government.

Krugman conceded that "soaking" the rich -- using a nickname for the Revenue Act of 1935, which established a post-Depression wealth tax on top earners of up to 75 percent -- is "not going to happen" due to today's political climate.

Today, the top rate of 39.6 percent is paid on income above $406,750 for individuals and $457,600 for couples.

"Any increase in top tax rates is almost certainly a move in the right direction starting from here," Krugman said.

Rick Perry Lost Big With Tesla Deal

Texas Gov. Rick Perry's charms were apparently lost on electric carmaker Tesla.

Despite Perry's shoddy record on clean energy, the former Republican presidential candidate desperately wanted Tesla to build its $5 billion battery factory in the Lone Star State. Perry personally led negotiations with Tesla over its so-called Gigafactory, which is expected to create 6,500 jobs. The governor even drove a Tesla Model S through California’s state capital in June, in a public stunt that the Los Angeles Times found surmountable to “stalking.”

“Tesla’s a big project,” Perry said during an interview with “Opening Bell” on Fox Business News in March. “I think the cachet of being able to say we put that manufacturing facility in our state is hard to pass up.”

All for naught. On Thursday, Tesla settled on Nevada as the location for its $5 billion 'Gigafactory,' ending a monthslong contest with Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and Tesla’s home state of California.

“It’s disappointing; he’s got to face it as a disappointment,” Peter Cowen, the managing director of technology investment banking firm Clear Capital Advisors, told The Huffington Post on Friday. “This one was a high-stakes battle and he lost.”

Part of the problem for Perry was a Texas law that bans car manufacturers from selling directly to customers. Because Tesla doesn't franchise its dealerships, it can't sell cars in the state. Though Perry said in March he wanted to lift the ban, it still proved to be a turn-off for the carmaker.

The ban “doesn’t make us feel good as we look to build a plant" in Texas, Diarmuid O’Connell, vice president of business development for Tesla, told The Huffington Post in June. O’Connell said economics would ultimately sway the company's decision.

A Tesla spokeswoman did not respond to a question about whether the continued sales ban factored into its decision, instead forwarding along quotes from CEO Elon Musk's press conference in Carson City, Nevada, on Thursday.

Perry had cause for hope. Earlier this year, he convinced Toyota to move its headquarters from California to suburban Dallas. Texas has a state Enterprise Fund, established by Perry in 2003, to serve as a “deal-closing” coffer from which officials can draw to bolster Texas’s business bids in interstate competitions. To boot, Texas has no corporate income tax.

Texas residents may have lucked out, as added incentives from the state could have ended up costing taxpayers. As it was, Texas was offering a tax package worth between $800 million and $900 million, according to the Austin American-Statesman. Nevada is coughing up $1.3 billion to seal its deal with the carmaker.

A spokesman for Perry’s office did not immediately respond to a call requesting comment.

Why Tesla picked Nevada is not totally clear. Musk said the reasons went beyond money.

“This was not the biggest incentive package, it wasn’t just about the incentives,” Musk said at the press conference. “What the people of Nevada have created is a state where you can be very agile, where you can move quickly and get things done.”

That may mean geography worked in Nevada’s favor. The ideal location for the company was probably California: It's Tesla's biggest market and fairly close to western Canada, where Tesla may soon begin getting some of its raw materials, according to Carter Driscoll, a senior analyst at the investment bank MLV & Co who covers Tesla.

The Golden State wasn't able to come up with an incentives packages on deadline, however. So neighboring Nevada may have proved the next best thing. Plus, there were those massive tax breaks. Perry can't win 'em all.

Kraft Recalls 7,691 Cases Of American Cheese Singles

NEW YORK - Kraft Foods Group Inc said on Friday it is voluntarily recalling 7,691 cases of some varieties of its Kraft American Singles as a precautionary measure after a supplier failed to store an ingredient correctly.

The Northfield, Illinois-based company said the recall affects four varieties of Kraft American Singles Pasteurized Prepared Cheese Product. The recall is for products with "Best When Used By" dates of Feb. 20, 2015, and Feb. 21, 2015.

A supplier did not store an ingredient in accordance with Kraft's temperature standards. While unlikely, this could create conditions that could lead to premature spoilage and food-borne illness, the company said.

Kraft said that any of the product in question should not be consumed and should be returned to the store where purchased for an exchange or full refund.

Kraft said it has had no consumer illness complaints for the product associated with the recall.

The cheese was produced at Kraft's Springfield, Missouri, facility. (Reporting by Anjali Athavaley; Editing by Leslie Adler)

Abercrombie & Fitch Is Getting Rid Of Logos On Its Clothes

Soon, that Hollister logo sweatshirt might be a collector's item.

Abercrombie & Fitch, which owns Hollister along with its namesake chain, announced Thursday that it will eliminate logo attire from its U.S. stores by spring 2015.

The once-mighty pair of teen retailers were the champions of the logo-era -- when teens and college kids everywhere loved showing off exactly where they bought their clothes. The shops used to be filled with tees, henley shirts and hoodies and proudly displaying the brands' names.

Now those days are over. On Thursday, Abercrombie reported a 10 percent drop in sales at its Hollister brand last quarter compared to the same period in 2013, as the company struggled to adapt to the changing non-logo times. The flagship brand has fared better, and Abercrombie saw only a 1 percent dip in sales in the past three months compared with the same period a year earlier. That's a small change, considering Abercrombie saw its sales plummet 10 percent in 2013.

Teens are ditching clothes emblazoned with logos for cheap, disposable fashion items. In the fall, the Abercrombie and Hollister will cut the amount of clothes repping their brands by half, Abercrombie Chief Executive Officer Mike Jeffries said on a conference call with analysts on Thursday. By spring, the North American logo business will be reduced to "practically nothing," he said.

Earlier this year, Abercrombie unveiled a plan to revamp Hollister and turn it into a "fast-fashion" brand, taking styles from the catwalks and bringing them to stores. It's aiming to better compete with the likes of H&M and Forever 21, which have become increasingly popular with teen shoppers.

"We're thrilled with the rate at which we're selling fashion," said Jeffries. "I think everyone has seen that in our assortments and it is working."

But the change so far has come on slowly.

Hollister began testing new storefronts in early 2014, dumping its beach shack-inspired porches for gleaming glass. Jonathan Ramsden, chief operating officer at Abercrombie, said on the call that the company is pleased with the Hollister remodeling thus far, and will speed up the rollout in 2015.

Hollister unveiled its new store concept in November 2013. (Photo: Hollister analyst day presentation)

Abercrombie expects to close up to 60 stores in the U.S. this year, the company said. Hollister operates around 600 stores, while the Abercrombie brand has about half that number. The retailer is also searching for a new executive to take the role of president at Hollister.

Analysts are not totally sour on the company. In early August, Nomura Securities analyst Simeon Siegel said Abercrombie had gone from the "most hated" name of all the teen retailers to "loved" as it cut costs and became more fashionable. Abercrombie's stock price is up 22% over the past year. And Eric Beder, an analyst at Wunderlich Securities, wrote in a note to clients on Tuesday that Abercrombie is "the best positioned teen retailer in our universe" as rivals Aeropostale and American Eagle continue to falter — meaning a comeback is still possible.

Ferguson's Farmers Market Offers Respite, Vegetables

As protests in Ferguson have spiraled into chaos over the past two weeks, there's been an oasis of calm in the center of the St. Louis suburb: The farmers market.

Since 2002, the Ferguson Farmers Market has offered fresh vegetables, fruits, meats and dairy produced by dozens of local farmers and other vendors. On Saturday, the damp weather might normally have meant a small crowd. But the market was bustling.

"It was pouring rain, but there were lots of people out, talking, shopping, buying big, beautiful tomatoes, talking to the mayor," said Katie Miller, 33, the co-owner of St. Louis jewelry store Scarlett Garnet, who drove out from the city to show support for the market.

"The vibe was great," said Elliot Mellow, 27, the owner of Absolutely Perfect, a St. Louis business that makes specialty sauces and seasonings. "There were lots of hugs and smiles, lots of emotion, but good emotion," said Mellow. "People were thankful."

Pure happiness filling the #Ferguson farmers market. It's pouring & people are dancing in the rain. Theres light if u choose to focus on it.

— Sarah Crowe (@TheSarahCrowe) August 16, 2014

Since Aug. 9, when 18-year-old Michael Brown was killed by a police officer, protests have become a nightly occurrence, often with clashes between demonstrators and police. Vandalism and looting have been widespread, hundreds of people have been arrested, at least two have been wounded by gunfire. News and photos of the unrest have been front-page news, widely shared worldwide on social media.

But in Ferguson, the community has bonded to overcome the negativity. At least two organizations are selling T-shirts with messages of solidarity -- "Ferguson Proud" and "I Heart Ferg" -- with the proceeds going to local charities. Mellow said he donated the money he made Saturday to the Ferguson Youth Initiative, a nonprofit that encourages young people to be active members of the community. A bakery a few blocks south of the farmers market, Cose Dolci Bakery, has been selling heart-shaped cookies that say "Ferg" in the middle.

"It's way of spreading the love," bakery owner Bess Thompson said. "We were all so blindsided by this. It's kind of ironic this happened here, because of all communities in north St. Louis County, Ferguson is the most progressive, the most inclusive, the most tolerant."

Right now in #Ferguson selling #iheartferg shirts at the #farmersmarket pic.twitter.com/oYvKfrfLMj

— Scarlett Garnet (@ScarlettGarnet) August 16, 2014

Sportsprint in #Ferguson selling tshirts to benefit food pantry #FergusonProud @FOX2now pic.twitter.com/AuklvlJweo

— Andy Banker (@andybankertv) August 16, 2014

The Ferguson Farmers Market is open Saturdays during warm months (in winter, it's open every third Saturday in a church). The farmers market will be open again on Saturday as scheduled, said volunteer Chris Shanahan, 39.

Some who came out to the market said they wanted to support local business, because they're worried the negative publicity will affect the local economy. "People remember what they see. People who see all this on the news will be scared of Ferguson," said Julie Johnson, 31, a special education teacher who lives nearby. "We're trying to show these small businesses some love."

Local businesses have already been hurt. Dellwood Market owner Muntaz Lalani, who's in his 60s, said "thugs" had ransacked his business twice since Aug. 10. He estimated the damage at $50,000. Joe O'Donnell, who owns a Papa John's Pizza franchise in nearby Dellwood, said he had to close early last week and lost about 40 percent of his business.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) recently said she's starting a campaign #ShopFerguson to help support local businesses and highlight ways people are helping.

Sarah Crowe, 24, a hairstylist who lives in nearby St. Charles County, said she was worried how the media coverage would affect Ferguson's mom and pop shops. "Even celebs are tweeting such horrible things about Ferguson," said Crowe, who grew up in St. Louis and came to the farmers market on Saturday with her roommate, Sam, to show support for the town.

"After this one bad incident, it's now embarrassing to be from here," Crowe said. "With the media, I know they're just doing their jobs, but it really makes Ferguson look like a horrible place. In reality, it's not that way at all. It's a cozy environment. It's just a normal small town."

These 10 Companies Control The World's Food

From 24/7 Wall St.: The agriculture and food production industry employed more than one billion people as of last year, or a third of the global workforce. While the industry is substantial, a relatively small number of companies wield an enormous amount of influence.

In its 2013 report, “Behind the Brands,” Oxfam International focused on 10 of the world’s biggest and most influential food and beverage companies. These corporations are so powerful that their policies can have a major impact on the diets and working conditions of people worldwide, as well as on the environment. Based on the report, these are the 10 companies that control the world’s food.

Click here to see the companies that control the world’s food.

In an interview with 24/7 Wall St., Chris Jochnick, director of the private sector department at Oxfam America, discussed the impact that these 10 companies have on the world. “If you look at the massive global food system, it’s hard to get your head around. Just a handful of companies can dictate food choices, supplier terms and consumer variety,” Jochnick said.

These 10 companies are among the largest in the world by a number of measures. All of them had revenues in the tens of billions of dollars in 2013. Five of these companies had at least $50 billion in assets, while four had more than $6 billion in profits last year. Additionally, these 10 companies directly employed more than 1.5 million people combined — and contracted with far more.

Nestle is the largest of these 10 companies. Converted into dollars, Nestle had more than $100 billion in sales and more than $11 billion in profits in 2013. The Switzerland food giant alone employed roughly 333,000 people.

Many of these companies and their brands are extremely well known. One reason is that they often spend huge sums on advertising. Nine of these 10 companies were among the 100 largest media spenders in the world in 2012. Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO), the world’s sixth largest advertiser, spent more than $3 billion in 2012 on advertising. Unilever’s media expenditure, at $7.4 billion, was the second-highest worldwide.

With such scale, many of these companies’ policies — including advertising, food ingredients, environmental impact, and labor practices — have an significant impact on millions of lives. Often, these companies have been reluctant to address issues related to their environmental impact and the quality of life of workers in their supply chain. According to Jochnick, many of these companies are “unaware of the social and environmental impact that they are creating or facilitating.”

However, not all the companies are reluctant to address these problems. None of the 10 companies was better-rated by Oxfam than Nestle, which was closely followed by Unilever. Still, even these companies had problems, according to Oxfam’s 2013 report. In 2011, Nestle discovered cases of children working in its cocoa supply chain, as well as instances of forced labor. A supplier of palm oil for Unilever was accused of illegal deforestation and forcible land grabs.

A strong public profile, as well as consumer awareness, may lead these companies to address issues of concern. “A company that is good and trusted ought to be a company that is aware of, and taking steps to avoid, serious human rights or social or environmental problems that it is part of,” Jochnick said.

Some companies have taken steps towards becoming better corporate citizens. General Mills and Kellogg, which have been among the 10 companies Oxfam studied, have implemented new policies to address important issues such as climate change. Both companies recently committed to disclosing and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years.

Based on Oxfam International’s 2013 report, “Behind the Brands: Food justice and the ‘Big 10’ food and beverage companies,” 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the 10 companies that control the world’s food. We also added information on each company’s revenue, net profit, total assets, and employee count from their most recent annual report. Data were translated from foreign currencies based on the exchange rate on the final date of each company’s reporting period. Information on companies’ brands come from corporate websites and Oxfam. Data on 2012 advertising expenditures are from Advertising Age’s report, “Global Marketers 2013,” and are estimates. Estimates for Mars Incorporated, which is privately held, are from Forbes’ report “America’s Largest Private Companies 2013.”

These are the companies that control the world’s food, according to 24/7 Wall St.:

 These 10 Companies Control The World's Food of  

• > Revenue: $21.1 billion > Advertising spending: N/A > Profits: $837 million > Employees: 112,652 Associated British Foods is a U.K. food manufacturer that has built out a global presence largely through acquisitions. Associated British Foods operates sugar factories, sells food ingredients to wholesale and industry customers, and manufactures consumer products such as Mazola corn oil and Twinings tea. According to Oxfam, the company received low marks for its practices in water use, having failed to conduct impact assessments, while also failing to adopt strong practices in managing its water supply chain. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.

• > Revenue: $46.9 billion > Advertising spending: $3.0 billion > Profits: $8.6 billion > Employees: 130,600 Coca-Cola is among the most valuable brands in the world. In total, Coca-Cola and its bottlers sold sold 28.2 billion cases worth of drinks, of which 47% were “trademark Coca-Cola.” In total, sales for The Coca-Cola Company were nearly $47 billion in its latest fiscal year. Overall, The Coca-Cola Company scores well for a number of practices, including addressing inequality for women working in production and supporting female empowerment for workers in its supply chain. The company is also well-rated for its land-management practices. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.

• > Revenue: $29.3 billion > Advertising spending: $1.2 billion > Profits: $2.0 billion > Employees: 104,642 France’s Groupe Danone has a truly global presence. Its largest market, by sales, is Russia, followed by France, the U.S., China, and Indonesia. According to the company, Danone is the world’s largest seller of fresh dairy products, which accounted for 11.8 billion euros in revenue, or over half of the company’s total sales in 2013. Danone is also among the world’s largest sellers of early life nutrition products and bottled waters. Danone received high scores for its policies in a number of major issues, including transparency and managing water resources. However, the company also received low scores in other policies, including its handling of land and farming issues. Danone received the lowest score of any company from Oxfam for its policies regarding women’s issues in agricultural production. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.

• > Revenue: $17.9 billion > Advertising spending: $1.1 billion > Profits: $1.8 billion > Employees: 43,000 General Mills owns a number of America’s best-known brands, including Betty Crocker, Green Giant, and Pillsbury. No company received a lower rating from Oxfam for its overall approach to major policy issues. General Mills had the lowest scores in awareness and policies regarding climate change. Recently, however, General Mills announced new initiatives designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in its supply chain. As part of the announcement, General Mills also pledged to implement specific emissions targets, to review supplier practices, and to name its largest suppliers of palm oil and sugar in order to improve transparency. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.

• > Revenue: $14.8 billion > Advertising spending: $1.1 billion > Profits: $1.8 billion > Employees: 30,277 Among the top food companies, Kellogg is the smallest by revenue. Still, as of 2013, the company had nearly $15 billion in sales, a similar amount in total assets, and more than 30,000 employees. Kellogg also owns a large number of very well-known brands, including Kellogg’s cereal, Keebler, and Pringles, which it acquired in 2012 for $2.7 billion. According to Kellogg, it is the world’s leading cereal company and the second-largest maker of cookies. In all, Kellogg makes 1,600 different foods, which it sells in more than 180 different countries. Kellogg received a lower overall rating from Oxfam for its practices than all but two of the other 10 companies. However, in a recent release, Oxfam praised Kellogg for its pledge to cut greenhouse emissions in its supply chain. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.

• > Revenue: $33.0 billion > Advertising spending: $2.2 billion > Profits: N/A > Employees: 60,000 Mars is the the only one of the world’s 10 largest food companies that is privately owned. Mars owns several well-known chocolate brands, such as M&Ms, Milky Way, Snickers and Twix. Mars also owns a range of food brands such as Uncle Ben’s rice, as well as chewing gum and candy-maker Wrigley. Among the big 10 global food companies, Mars received the lowest policy ratings for water and land issues. In both cases, Oxfam penalized the company for its lack of knowledge of its environmental impact, as well as for its supplier policies. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.

• > Revenue: $35.3 billion > Advertising spending: $1.9 billion > Profits: $3.9 billion > Employees: 107,000 In 2012, Kraft Foods split into two separate companies, Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez. While Kraft Foods Group took North American grocery brands, Mondelez took its snacks and candies brands, which include Cadbury, Nabisco, Oreo, and Trident, among many others. The company had over $35 billion in revenue and more than $72 billion in assets as of last year. It also employed 100,000 workers worldwide. According to Oxfam, Mondelez received low marks for its transparency, as well as for its handling of issues related to climate change and workers. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.

• > Revenue: $103.5 billion > Advertising spending: $3.0 billion > Profits: $11.2 billion > Employees: 333,000 By many measures, Nestle is the largest of the 10 food companies, with more than 92 billion Swiss francs in revenue last year — net profit and total asset figures that dwarf other food companies — and roughly 333,000 employees. Nestle is also the top-rated company by Oxfam for its approach to major policy issues. It received the highest scores for addressing transparency, water use, and climate change of any major food company. In its 2013 report, Oxfam highlighted Nestle’s efforts in addressing labor abuses the company discovered in its cocoa supply chain in the Ivory Coast. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.

• > Revenue: $66.4 billion > Advertising spending: $2.5 billion > Profits: $6.7 billion > Employees: 274,000 In addition to owning famous soda brands such as Pepsi, Mountain Dew, and Gatorade, PepsiCo also controls food brands such as Tostitos, Doritos, and Quaker. PepsiCo also employed nearly a quarter of a million people worldwide at the end of 2013. Pepsi was among the world’s biggest advertisers. Advertising Age estimates that PepsiCo’s worldwide media spending totalled $2.5 billion in 2012. According to three groups that measure brand value — Interbrand, BrandZ, and CoreBrand — Pepsi is one of the world’s most valuable brands in any industry. While PepsiCo received a lower score on policy issues than three other companies reviewed by Oxfam, it has developed a reputation for company responsibility in at least one area. CEO Indra Nooyi has pushed for healthier products in her time at the helm of the company. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.

• > Revenue: $68.5 billion > Advertising spending: $7.4 billion > Profits: $6.7 billion > Employees: 174,381 Unilever products are hardly limited to food and drinks. The U.K.- and Netherlands-based group also makes personal care and home care products. Still, its foods and refreshments businesses accounted for almost 23 billion euros of the company’s nearly 50 billion euros in revenue last year. Brands owned by Unilever include Lipton tea, Hellmann’s mayonnaise, and Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, to name only a few. Unilever generally scores fairly well for its efforts in addressing policy issues. Oxfam rated it above all other companies for its worker and farming policies. Only Nestle received a higher overall rating for its handling of the issues highlighted by Oxfam. Read more at 24/7 Wall St.

 Share  Tweet  ✖ Advertisement Share this ✖ close Current Slide