More stories

  • in

    Actors strike looms as midnight deadline approaches, union slams producers’ tactics

    The deadline for extended talks between the Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers is midnight.
    Heading into negotiations last month, Hollywood’s talent was looking to improve wages, working conditions and health and pension benefits, as well as create guardrails for the use of artificial intelligence in future television and film productions.
    SAG-AFTRA disputed reports that the AMPTP made the request for mediation after an emergency meeting Monday with several top Hollywood executives.

    People carry signs as SAG-AFTRA members walk the picket line in solidarity with striking WGA workers outside Netflix offices in Los Angeles, July 11, 2023.
    Mario Tama | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    Another strike is looming over Hollywood.
    If extended talks between the Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers fail by midnight in Los Angeles, 160,000 actors will join already-striking writers on the picket lines Thursday.

    Heading into negotiations last month, Hollywood’s talent was looking to improve wages, working conditions and health and pension benefits, as well as create guardrails for the use of artificial intelligence in future television and film productions.
    The actors’ union agreed to a request from studios and streaming services Tuesday to meet with federal mediators in one final push to reach a new contract deal, but members said they remain ready to walk off sets should negotiations fall through. The union has already granted one extension to its contract, which was originally set to expire July 1.
    SAG-AFTRA disputed reports that the AMPTP made the request for mediation after an emergency meeting Monday with several top Hollywood executives. The union said media reports were published before it was informed producers were requesting mediation.
    “We will not be distracted from negotiating in good faith to secure a fair and just deal by the expiration of our agreement,” SAG-AFTRA said in a statement Tuesday. “We are committed to the negotiating process and will explore and exhaust every possible opportunity to make a deal, however we are not confident that the employers have any intention of bargaining toward an agreement.”
    “The AMPTP has abused our trust and damaged the respect we have for them in this process,” SAG-AFTRA’s statement continued. “We will not be manipulated by this cynical ploy to engineer an extension when the companies have had more than enough time to make a fair deal.”

    SAG-AFTRA’s comments come as damning reports have surfaced about tactics studio producers allegedly plan to implement against the currently striking Writers Guild of America, namely, that producers don’t plan on attempting to negotiate with writers for several months. According to the reports, producers expect the underpaid workers will run out of money and possibly lose their homes and be forced to come to the bargaining table.
    Writers have been on strike for two months, leading several projects that did not have completed scripts to pause their productions.
    Already, Netflix has postponed the production start of the fifth and final season of “Stranger Things.” Warner Bros. Discovery’s “Game of Thrones” prequel “A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms: The Hedge Knight” shuttered its writers room. Disney and Marvel’s “Thunderbolts” and “Blade” have paused production.
    Some productions have been able to continue, albeit without writers on set, as their scripts were already completed. However, if SAG-AFTRA strikes, those shows and films will immediately stop shooting.
    Disclosure: Comcast is the parent company of NBCUniversal and CNBC. NBCUniversal is a member of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. More

  • in

    Is big business really getting too big?

    GOVERNMENTS ARE at war with big business. In June Joe Biden, America’s president, spoke for many politicians the world over when he blamed it for greed-fuelled price rises, sluggish wage growth, forgone innovation and fragile supply chains. His trustbusters at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have been going after large deals merely because they are large—or at least that is how it feels. Courtroom defeats do not dampen the agency’s zeal. The latest came on July 11th, when a judge rejected its request to block Microsoft’s $69bn acquisition of Activision Blizzard, a developer of video games. The ftc is expected to appeal against the ruling. The EU’s competition authorities are making noises about breaking up Google. Last year Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) derailed the $40bn acquisition by Nvidia, a semiconductor giant, of Arm, a chip-designer.Trustbusters invoke three justifications for their renewed vigour: greater market concentration, reduced churn among the world’s biggest firms and rising corporate profits. On the surface all three point to rising corporate power. Look closely, though, and the trends may be the result of benign factors such as technological progress and globalisation. In some local markets, greater concentration may, paradoxically, have led to more competition, not less. And the covid-19 pandemic may have planted the seeds of a further competitive revival. Some big firms, it is true, have been collecting rents, including in big sectors such as health care. But trustbusters’ strategy—to reflexively question any deal involving a big firm—is wrongheaded.That concentration has been rising is not in question. Across America’s economy it is higher today than at any point in at least the past century (see chart 1). Out of some 900 sectors in America tracked by The Economist, the number where the four biggest firms have a market share above two-thirds has grown from 65 in 1997 to 97 by 2017. In Europe, where the data are less comprehensive, market power has been increasing for at least 20 years. Using data on western Europe’s largest economies—Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Spain—Gabor Koltay, Szabolcs Lorincz and Tommaso Valletti, three economists, find that the market share of the four largest firms grew in 73% of some 700-odd industries from 1998 to 2019. The average increase was about seven percentage points. The proportion of firms with a share above 50% increased from 16% of industries to 27% by 1998 to 2019. Britain and France saw the biggest jumps. At the same time, incumbent firms look more entrenched. In Britain, the average number of firms that stick in the top ten of their industries by market share three years later was five before the financial crisis. It is now closer to eight. Thomas Philippon of New York University’s Stern School of Business finds a similar reduction in churn among top American firms. Most telling, firms are raking in higher profits. The Economist has come up with a crude estimate of “excess” profits for the world’s 3,000 largest listed companies by market value (excluding financial firms). Using reported figures from Bloomberg we calculate a firm’s hurdle rate of return on invested capital above 10% (excluding goodwill and treating research and development as an asset with a ten-year lifespan). This is the rate of return one might expect in a competitive market. In the past year excess profits reached $4trn, or nearly 4% of global GDP (see chart 2). They are highly concentrated in the West, especially America. American firms collect 41% of the total, with European ones taking 21%. The energy, technology and, in America, health-care industries stand out as excess-profit pools relative to their size.All this looks troubling. And in certain sectors, it is. Four decades ago more than eight in ten hospitals were non-profits with a single location. Now more than six in ten are owned by sprawling for-profit hospital chains or academic networks such as Steward Health Care or Indiana University Health. At first this was a perfectly healthy process of big and efficient chains expanding across America. Two decades—and nearly 2,000 hospital mergers—later, things look ropey. An analysis from 2019 by Martin Gaynor of Carnegie Mellon University and colleagues suggests that such mergers have tended to raise prices without improving quality. Still, high concentration, low churn and rich profits need not necessarily make consumers worse off. That concentration has been rising for 100 years, during which life has improved for virtually everyone, is the first clue that it may be the result of benign forces. Increases in industry concentration in America over the past century are correlated with greater technological intensity, higher fixed costs and higher output growth, according to Yueran Ma of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and colleagues. None of these seems particularly nefarious. That concentration has also risen in Europe, where competition authorities have not been as sleepy as in America, likewise suggests that powerful structural forces are at play. John Van Reenen of the London School of Economics fingers technology and globalisation. The internet has reduced the cost of shopping around, even as software and other technology allow the best firms to scale up their operations around the world. Figures collected by McKinsey, a consultancy, show that the return on invested capital for a firm in the 75th percentile by this measure is 20 percentage points higher than for a median firm. “There are just huge economies of scale with software,” says Sterling Auty of MoffettNathanson, a research firm.Local anti-heroesMoreover, higher concentration at the country level may increase competition locally. Service industries in particular, which make up about half the 900-odd sectors in America’s census, are better examined at the local level. Fiona Scott Morton, a former deputy assistant attorney-general now at Yale School of Management, uses the example of coffee shops. With just one café in each neighbourhood, the national market would be hyperfragmented. But every consumer would face a local monopoly. “If I’m looking for a coffee, I’m not going to drive three hours,” she says. Academics debate what exactly has happened to concentration in local markets. What seems increasingly clear is that the best firms have expanded into more and more of them. Walmarts, with their “everyday low prices”, cater to shoppers across America, thanks to the retail behemoth’s unrivalled logistics operation. Cheesecake Factory uses a laboratory in California to taste-test dishes that it quickly rolls out to its 200 or so locations around America. A recent paper titled “The Industrial Revolution in Services’‘, by Esteban Rossi-Hansberg at the University of Chicago and his co-author, shows that the geographic expansion of big firms increases competition for local incumbents, whose local market share falls.As for low churn, it is not so bad if the incumbents keep innovating—which is what many are doing. Despite central banks pushing interest rates up at the fastest pace in decades in an attempt to quash inflation, American private investment in the first quarter of 2023 was 17.2% of GDP, similar to pre-pandemic highs. Many corporate behemoths are ploughing billions into innovation, including in areas that most worry trustbusters, such as technology. American tech’s big five—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta and Microsoft—collectively invested around $200bn in R&D last year, about a quarter of America’s total in 2021. Microsoft and Alphabet are at the forefront of the AI race. Profits have, it is true, been higher in America since the financial crisis of 2007-09 than in previous decades, especially if you consider free cashflows, which accounts for the changing way companies depreciate assets (see chart 3). But they look somewhat less unusual if you adjust for lower tax rates and firms’ larger global footprint. And they may have peaked: analysts estimate that earnings for the S&P 500 index of American blue chips dipped in the three months to June, year on year, for the third quarter in a row.Most heartening, far from being subdued, dynamism may be on the rise. John Haltiwanger of the University of Maryland notes that business formation, which had been “quite anaemic” since the mid-2010s, has surged since the pandemic (see chart 4). In the past few years many more new firms have been created than old ones have been shut down. Whether these startups will dislodge incumbents is still unclear. But venture-capital investment suggests investors see scope for healthy returns. Although it is half what it was at its frothy peak of over $130bn in the fourth quarter of 2021, that has only brought it back to the levels of 2019 and 2020.One hypothesis is that the remote-friendliness of the post-covid economy reduces startup costs. Young firms no longer need to rent a big office. They can hire from a less local talent pool. By our rough count, around 125 of the Census Bureau’s 900-odd industries benefit from rising e-commerce or can provide their services remotely. Consumers’ growing comfort with such options could inspire more new businesses to set up shop. Mr Haltiwanger already observes a small shift in the size distribution of firms towards smaller fry. Concentration may also be levelling off as a result of subdued dealmaking, especially in tech. The big five tech firms’ share of all acquisitions by listed firms in America has fallen from nearly 1% in the 2010s to less than 0.5% since the start of Mr Biden’s tenure. Some of the slowdown in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) is caused by the rising cost of capital and risk of recession. But renewed antitrust zeal must be playing a role. On June 27th American authorities updated their merger guidelines for the first time in 45 years, requiring firms to report far more details on deals worth over $110m, half the average deal size in 2022. The biggest transactions are almost sure to be subject to a deep probe, which can add months to a filing process that now takes weeks. Regulators everywhere are throwing “sand in the gears of the M&A machine”, sighs a lawyer. “The FTC has stopped being discerning,” says another. Britain’s CMA “has probably overreached”, echoes a British one. Such overzealous trustbusting carries its own risks. It may distract attention from more immediate threats to economic dynamism from bureaucratic restraints on land use or occupational licensing. Acquisitions can be useful for preserving the value of startups when subdued markets make it hard for founders to raise capital. And some big deals may benefit consumers, as when a biotech startup joins forces with established drugmakers to test and distribute a new therapy. Competition authorities were probably asleep for too long. Now they may be getting up too quickly. ■ More

  • in

    United unveils new first-class seats in nearly once-in-a-decade refresh

    United Airlines unveiled a new first-class seat.
    United will install the new seats on about 200 narrow-body planes for domestic flights.
    The airline’s last refreshed its domestic first class in 2015.
    Rival Delta Airlines last year introduced a new first-class seat that also includes privacy barriers.

    United Airlines’ new first-class seat.
    Courtesy: United Airlines

    United Airlines on Wednesday unveiled its first new seat in nearly a decade for passengers at the front of the plane, becoming the latest carrier to upgrade its cabin as airlines battle for high-paying travelers.
    The new first-class seat for narrow-body domestic flights features better technology like armrest wireless charging stations and winged headrests. There will also be an 11-by-19-inch barrier between the seats, which are in a two-by-two configuration.

    United and rivals like Delta Air Lines and JetBlue Airways have upgraded their business- or first-class seats in recent months to create more privacy and more room for customers willing to pay a premium to fly. Last year, Delta debuted domestic first-class seats that also feature privacy wings at the top of the seat, while JetBlue redesigned its Mint class to offer seats with sliding doors.
    Airlines are clamoring for new cabins and aircraft, but supply chain delays have slowed some of those efforts, including at United, as the aviation industry struggles to rebuild itself after a Covid pandemic slump.
    The new United first-class seat will first appear on a Boeing 737 this month. The carrier said it expects to have it on 200 narrow-body aircraft like 737s and Airbus A321neos on domestic routes by 2026.
    “There’s no one seat that can probably fulfill all of our needs but this is the one we want to build our future around in the domestic space,” Mark Muren, United’s managing director of identity, product and loyalty, told CNBC.
    The seats will feature three kinds of charging: wireless, a USB-C and an AC outlet. They also feature 13-inch seatback screens, 18-by-8.5-inch tray tables and a new seat cushion.

    Wireless charging on United’s new first-class seat
    Courtesy: United Airlines

    Muren said the airline considered dozens of variations of the seat before settling on this model, which is made by French aerospace giant Safran.
    Not every aircraft will get the new seat, but United is also planning to upgrade the current first-class seat, which it started flying in 2015. Some of the new features will include the privacy barriers at the headrest and new cushions.

    United’s current domestic first-class seat.
    United Airlines

    United also flies some wide-body aircraft domestically between hubs. Those planes have its highest-end Polaris seat, which converts into a bed. More

  • in

    Lucid’s second quarter deliveries fell short of estimates amid demand concerns

    Lucid delivered 1,404 of its electric Air luxury sedans in the second quarter.
    Analysts polled by FactSet expected Lucid to deliver about 2,000 vehicles.
    The news suggests that demand for the Air remains weaker than the company had hoped.

    Visitors walk at the Lucid Air during the Mobile World Congress 2023 (MWC), the telecom industry’s biggest annual gathering on February 28, 2023 in Barcelona, Spain. 
    Chris Jung | Nurphoto | Getty Images

    Luxury electric vehicle maker Lucid Group said Wednesday that it delivered 1,404 of its Air sedans to customers in the second quarter, a bearish update amid demand concerns.
    Lucid’s second-quarter deliveries compare with 1,406 deliveries in the first quarter of 2023 and 679 in the second quarter of 2022. Wall Street analysts polled by FactSet had expected Lucid to deliver about 2,000 Airs in the second quarter.

    The company said it produced 2,173 Airs in the period, versus 2,314 in the first quarter.
    Shares were down over 11% in midday trading following the news.
    Lucid’s stock has fallen about 58% in the last year through Tuesday amid growing concerns about demand for the Air luxury sedan. The Air is a well-regarded luxury sedan with the longest range of any EV currently available in the U.S., but it’s expensive: While lower-priced versions are on the way, the Air currently starts at $92,900 before incentives.
    The company surprised Wall Street analysts in February when it said it planned to build just 10,000 to 14,000 Airs in 2023, despite having “over 28,000” reservations on hand. At the time, CEO Peter Rawlinson said the company would focus on marketing in 2023, a hint that it may have been struggling to convert those reservations to sold orders.
    In another sign of trouble, Lucid cut about 18% of its workforce, or roughly 1,300 workers, in late March.

    Not all the news has been bad, however. Lucid said on June 26 that it struck a deal to supply Aston Martin Lagonda with electric-vehicle powertrains, battery systems and related technology. In return, Lucid will receive a total of about $232 million in phased payments and a 3.7% stake in the storied British supercar maker.
    Both Aston Martin and Lucid count Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund among their investors.
    During its first-quarter earnings report on May 8, Lucid said that it expects to produce “over 10,000” vehicles in 2023, and that it had enough cash on hand to continue operations until at least the second quarter of 2024. The company raised an additional $3 billion at the end of May.
    Lucid will report its second-quarter results after the U.S. markets close on Aug. 7.
    Correction: This story was updated to reflect the correct starting price for the Lucid Air. More

  • in

    From ‘Barbie’ to Formula 1, TAG Heuer is making its mark on the luxury watch market

    Luxury watch maker TAG Heuer, which is owned by LVMH, is riding a wave of marketing successes and new launches.
    The brand has opened a flagship boutique on Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue, allowing for more direct relationships with its customers.
    It has also leaned into partnerships with Formula 1 and actor Ryan Gosling, who’s been wearing a watch with a pink face as part of his promotion for the new “Barbie” movie.

    TAG Heuer is riding a wave of marketing successes and new launches to grow its market share in the luxury watch world, according to its CEO.
    The company, which is owned by LVMH, opened a flagship boutique on Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue on Wednesday as part of a rapid expansion in the U.S. It plans to more than double its boutiques in the U.S. to 50 by 2026, according to TAG Heuer CEO Frédéric Arnault.

    Along with increasing sales, the boutiques give the brand more direct relationships with its customers rather than relying on third-party retailers or department stores.
    “This is a big shift in the last five years and that will continue in the next five to 10 years,” said Arnault, the 28-year-old son of LVMH CEO and Chairman Bernard Arnault. “Getting branded stores that we operate ourselves along with e-commerce allows us to nurture direct customer relationships.”

    Frédéric Arnault, CEO of TAG Heuer.

    Those customers have been growing fast since Frédéric Arnault took over as TAG Heuer’s CEO in 2020. Under his reign, the company has leaned into its legacy in auto racing, especially Formula 1, which has surged in popularity since the Covid-19 pandemic. As the official partners and timekeeper of the Oracle Red Bull Racing team, its watches are worn by top-ranked driver Max Verstappen and his teammate Sergio Perez.
    Arnault said TAG Heuer is making strides due in part to marketing wins and new products, such as the new TAG Heuer Monaco Chronograph with a skeleton dial worn by Verstappen, which clocks in at more than $10,000.
    The company’s top models are so popular that TAG Heuer waiting lists are now up to 18 months long.

    “Demand is a lot stronger than what we had projected,” Frédéric Arnault said. “So that’s what creates the wait list as well. And so we cannot ramp up that fast. Of course, if we want to double production in the next 18 months we can, but we will not do that. We also want to ensure that the value of the watches are maintained over the long term.”

    A TAG Heuer store.

    TAG Heuer’s growth is all part of LVMH’s goal of becoming the world leader in every luxury category, from fashion and leather goods to wine and spirits and watches and jewelry. Along with TAG Heuer, LVMH owns the Hublot, Zenith and Fred watch brands and it has been increasing sales of its Louis Vuitton and Bulgari watches. The French-based company’s jewelry and watch division reported sales growth of 11% in the first quarter from the year prior, to reach 2.6 billion euros.
    Arnault said a recent correction in prices for pre-owned collectible watches has been healthy for the market. After prices for trophy watches such as the Rolex Daytona, Audemars Piguet Royal Oak and Patek Philippe Nautilus surged during the pandemic, they have since fallen 20% or more as the supply of watches for sale online grows.
    “After Covid, there was a very strong growth acceleration, especially in watches,” Arnault said. “We saw a huge surge in secondhand markets, due also to speculation with many resale prices that were increasing. And this has changed in the past six to eight months in the secondhand market and now it has normalized again. I think it’s healthier and we will continue to see some solid growth selling directly from the store.”
    TAG Heuer may also get a lift from its partnership with actor Ryan Gosling. Gosling has been sporting a 36mm TAG Heuer Carrera with a bright pink dial as part of his promotion of the new “Barbie” movie. Arnault said “Barbie” fans can expect to see other TAG Heuer watches in the film as well.
    “We made sure that there was the right watches present in the movie, ” Arnault said. “Ryan will be wearing some iconic watches that fit well in this universe. The Carrera 36mm in pink has already been nicknamed the ‘Barbie watch’ by our customers.” More

  • in

    Chipotle tests robot that can prepare avocados to make guacamole faster

    Chipotle said it’s developed a robot that can prepare avocados before they’re added to guacamole.
    Today, it takes roughly 50 minutes to make a batch of Chipotle’s guacamole.
    The restaurant industry has been struggling with a shrinking workforce and rising labor costs.

    Avocados sliced, cored and peeled by the Autocado robot created by Chipotle and Vebu Labs.
    Source: Chipotle Mexican Grill

    Chipotle Mexican Grill has developed a robot that can cut, core and peel avocados used in its guacamole as the restaurant industry faces a sustained labor shortage.
    Today, it takes roughly 50 minutes to make a batch of Chipotle’s guacamole. But the Autocado unveiled Wednesday could cut the prep time in half.

    The fast-casual chain developed the collaborative robot, or cobot, in partnership with Vebu Labs, a California-based robotics startup. Chipotle also announced Wednesday that its $50 million venture arm, Cultivate Next, is investing in Vebu. Financial terms weren’t disclosed.
    The announcements come as the company and its rivals have experimented with robotics and other forms of automation. The broader restaurant industry is struggling with a shrinking workforce and rising wages.
    Sweetgreen recently opened a location in Naperville, Illinois, where it makes its salads and warm bowls on an automated assembly line. Starbucks is investing in coffee-making equipment that creates less work for baristas. Fast-food chains such as Carl’s Jr. are using artificial intelligence software to take drive-thru orders.

    How Chipotle’s Autocado works

    To prepare avocados using the Autocado, Chipotle employees load up the device with a full case of the ripe fruit. The Autocado can hold up to 25 pounds at one time.
    Then, the machine vertically orients the avocados, slices them in half and removes their cores and skin. A bowl at the bottom collects the fruit, which employees can then hand mash and mix with the rest of the guacamole ingredients.

    Chipotle still wants employees to have a hand in making their guacamole.
    “There’s no plan to test automated guac made in our restaurant,” Curt Garner, Chipotle’s chief technology officer, told CNBC.
    Employees don’t have to monitor the Autocado while it prepares the avocados and can even use the top of the device as more counter space to prepare other ingredients.
    The prototype is “very close” to design for manufacture, according to Garner. Chipotle expects to test the Autocado in restaurants later this year.
    Eventually, Vebu plans to add machine learning capabilities and sensors to the Autocado that will help it evaluate the quality of avocados.
    Preparing avocados for guacamole routinely ranks as one of employees’ least favorite tasks, Garner said. It’s also one of the most dangerous duties in Chipotle kitchens, sometimes resulting in knife injuries.
    On top of saving time and labor costs, the robot could also cut food waste. If the chain deploys the Autocado across its footprint of more than 3,200 locations, it could help save millions of dollars on avocados annually, the company said.
    Despite those savings, guacamole will probably still cost customers extra.
    “It’s worth it,” Garner said.
    Chipotle has been testing out automation for other kitchen tasks. Since September, one of the company’s California locations has been using Chippy, an autonomous tortilla chip maker created by Miso Robotics, a subsidiary of Vebu.
    “We’ve got a few more months of that restaurant test before we’ll officially make the decision whether there’s any more refactoring that needs to be done or whether [Chippy is] ready to go into a different restaurant,” Garner said.
    Garner added that the company is exploring more opportunities to automate ingredient preparation and use artificial intelligence to predict how much food to prepare. More

  • in

    Whistleblower alleges Medtronic engaged in bribery scheme at veterans hospital

    A recently unsealed whistleblower lawsuit alleges sales representatives from Medtronic, the world’s largest medical equipment company, operated a bribery scheme in a veterans hospital.
    A VA official says the hospital conducted its own internal investigation that found excessive Medtronic devices were being purchased.
    In a statement to CNBC, Medtronic said the “allegations in this case are false, and Medtronic will continue to defend the litigation as it moves ahead.”

    For nearly a decade, sales representatives from a prominent medical device maker operated a bribery scheme at a Kansas veterans hospital that wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and jeopardized the lives of patients, a recently unsealed whistleblower lawsuit alleges.
    The sales reps from the company, Medtronic, “bribed hospital staff to purchase its devices over those of competitors and to purchase grossly excessive inventory,” according to the suit.

    In 2017, Tom Schroeder filed the lawsuit, United States ex rel. Schroeder v. Medtronic, Inc., under seal. The case became public at the end of 2022, when the government decided not to intervene in the case.
    Schroeder said before this lawsuit consumed his life, he devoted his career to the medical device industry. For years he worked at Becton Dickinson, a direct competitor to Medtronic. At the time of the alleged kickback scheme, Schroeder was a sales manager at Becton Dickinson, but eventually ascended to the level of an area vice president, making him responsible for managing sales representatives in his region.
    “We get into this industry to help people,” Schroeder said. 

    Tom Schroeder, the whistleblower accusing Medtronic of a kickback scheme, left, is interviewed by Morgan Brennan, in Kansas City, Missouri.

    But while working at one of his client sites – a small veterans hospital in Kansas – he said he learned about a scheme that had the opposite effect. Schroeder said rumors circulated that Medtronic sales representatives were bribing VA staff to purchase an excessive amount of the company’s inventory. These products were later used in medically unnecessary procedures on veteran patients, Schroeder alleged. He said the prospect of veterans being harmed is what motivated him to file this suit. 
    “I had a hard time sleeping at night,” Schroder said. 

    Medtronic, headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, is the world’s largest medical device manufacturer in terms of revenue. Shares of the company were up more than 12% year to date as of Tuesday’s close. Medtronic’s latest annual filing also shows it had more than $31 billion in sales – with the largest portion of that coming from its cardiovascular portfolio.
    The products at the center of Schroeder’s lawsuit fall under the cardiovascular umbrella. 
    “There’s a lot of money tied up in this business,” Schroeder said.
    Medtronic declined an on-camera interview for this story. In a statement to CNBC, Boua Xiong, a Medtronic spokesperson, said the “allegations in this case are false, and Medtronic will continue to defend the litigation as it moves ahead.”

    An alleged scheme

    The lawsuit centers on how patients are treated for peripheral artery disease at the Robert J. Dole Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Wichita.
    The condition occurs when plaque builds up in the arteries and blocks blood flow to the legs. One way to treat the disease is with an atherectomy device, which removes buildup in the arteries and restores blood flow. These devices can be used in conjunction with balloons, which expand in the vessel to put pressure on the buildup to clear it. Devices, known as stents, can then be inserted to keep the artery propped open. 
    Medtronic is a major manufacturer of these devices. 
    Schroeder said atherectomy procedures at the hospital were performed at a level he’s never seen in his career. 
    Unsealed text messages from the case show that in 2017, a Medtronic sales representative sat in an operating room as doctors treated a veteran patient for peripheral artery disease. As the patient lay on the operating table, this employee texted a Medtronic colleague play by play of the devices that were inserted into the veteran’s body. 
    Medical experts say typically one to two devices are used in these procedures. But in this case, 17 devices were deployed, according to the text messages.
    “U are going to want to start going to the VA all the time,” the colleague texted in response to hearing that many devices had been used.
    After the procedure concluded, the Medtronic sales representative in the operating room texted her colleague that she was taking the doctors who had performed the procedure to get lunch. 
    “If you read those text messages and you’re not pissed off and you’re not angry and you’re not sad for those veterans, I don’t know what to say,” Schroeder said. “That broke my heart.”
    The Dole VA launched its own internal investigation in 2018 when its new medical director, Rick Ament, noticed the department that performed these procedures was spending an excessive amount of money.
    Ament, who still works in the Department of Veterans Affairs system, declined an interview. CNBC obtained his nearly six-hour video deposition, which was taken in 2022 as part of Schroder’s lawsuit.

    Video deposition of Rick Ament, the former medical director of the Robert J. Dole Veterans Affairs Medical Center, taken as part of this whistleblower lawsuit.
    United States ex rel. Schroeder v. Medtronic

    “The rough estimates early in the analysis showed that our costs were $5 million a year more than they should have been in this department alone,” Ament said in his deposition.
    Ament’s investigation, which occurred independently and without knowledge of the lawsuit Schroeder filed a year earlier, found that the Dole VA was purchasing an excessive amount of Medtronic inventory.
    The veterans hospital purchased more devices than some of the largest veterans medical facilities, according to data the VA’s investigation gathered. 
    “The foundational number that we were looking at was the usage compared to the largest hospitals in the VA, and we exceeded that by multiple folds,” Ament said.
    The evidence Ament’s team collected was concerning enough to shut down the unit that performed these procedures, which it did in 2018, according to his deposition testimony. Ament also said he referred the case to the VA’s Office of Inspector General, or OIG, which opened its own investigation later that year. As of this month, the OIG said its investigation still has not been completed. 
    Many of the documents gathered during the OIG’s investigation have recently been unsealed as evidence in Schroeder’s lawsuit. Internal Medtronic records the OIG gathered show dozens of pages of dinner receipts. 
    “There’s a tremendous amount of activity here,” Ament said when he saw the receipts during his deposition. 
    In Ament’s deposition, some of these itemizations were disclosed. In one of these outings, two orders of oysters at $34, three orders of filet mignon at $76, two orders of lobster tail for $84, a rib eye for $42 and halibut for $40 had all been expensed.
    “This clearly gives the impression that influence is trying to be asserted,” Ament said in his deposition. 
    According to the OIG’s investigatory documents, these meals were provided to hospital staff at the Dole VA as well as the doctors the VA contracted to perform atherectomy procedures. 

    Medtronic pushes back

    Since 2011, Medtronic and its subsidiaries have paid more than $60 million in settlements related to allegations of kickback schemes and fraud claims. 
    Medtronic said it has “cooperated fully” with the Department of Justice in past settlements, and “when problems were found, took appropriate remedial action.” In these settlements, Medtronic made no admissions of wrongdoing.

    Past Medtronic settlements

    2011: Medtronic paid $23.5 million to settle claims that the company paid kickbacks to physicians.
    2015: One of Medtronic’s acquirees, ev3, paid the government $1.25 million to resolve allegations that it caused certain hospitals to submit false claims to Medicare for alleged unnecessary inpatient admissions related to atherectomy procedures.
    2018: Medtronic paid $13 million related to allegations of a kickback scheme that originated from one of its subsidiaries, Covidien. Medtronic said the settlement is related to alleged misconduct largely before its acquisition of Covidien.
    2019: Medtronic paid more than $17 million because a doctor from Covidien offered discounted and free marketing to doctors using its products. The alleged misconduct occurred between 2011 and 2014, largely before Medtronic acquired Covidien.
    2020: The medical device giant paid more than $8 million for alleged kickbacks to a neurosurgeon. 

    Medtronic also said that Schroeder has “admitted under oath that he has no firsthand knowledge of any problematic procedure involving Medtronic devices.” Evidence shows “the physicians performing these procedures … received no additional compensation for the procedure of using the devices,” the company said.
    In a motion to dismiss, filed in November 2022, Medtronic wrote Schroeder was a “direct competitor” who “lacks sufficiently concrete factual allegations to plausibly claim medically unnecessary procedures occurred.” However, the judge found that the allegations of medically unnecessary procedures were sufficient because Schroeder said Medtronic’s employees had a financial incentive to promote the use of its products, even if those products were not medically necessary. 
    “Anybody who thinks I’m a disgruntled employee just really hasn’t read the facts. Because when you read the facts, I think it speaks for itself,” Schroeder said. 
    Schroeder also doesn’t think you can chalk up the alleged kickback scheme at the Dole hospital to a mere rogue sales representative. Schroeder alleges that this misconduct was visible to employees with leadership roles at the company.
    “I was an executive with a competing company, so I have a distinct understanding of what’s visible to the higher-ups,” he said. 
    Brendan Donelon, Schroeder’s attorney for this case, also pointed to this being a systemic issue. 
    “These pretty grotesquely large dollar amounts had to have stuck out like a sore thumb.” Donelon said. “But you can choose to look the other way.”

    Brendan Donelon, the whistleblower’s attorney, right, is interviewed by Morgan Brennan, in Kansas City, Missouri.

    Donelon said one of the most shocking aspects is that one of the sales representatives who allegedly perpetrated this kickback scheme at the Dole VA is still employed with Medtronic and selling products at other VA facilities throughout the country. 
    “You can have policies on paper, but unless you put them into practice, unless you change your culture, it’s going to keep happening,” he said. 
    CNBC spoke with more than a dozen former Medtronic employees, many of whom touted the company’s compliance system and said they were not aware of any improprieties. When asked how this alleged kickback scheme could have slipped through the cracks for nearly a decade, many said if Schroeder’s allegations were true, this alleged misconduct may have been inherited from companies Medtronic acquired because they had less rigorous compliance systems in place. 
    In a statement to CNBC, Xiong said Medtronic has a “strong compliance and reporting program, including robust auditing and other internal controls in addition to an employee Code of Conduct.”
    Douglas Winger, one of the Medtronic sales representatives named as a defendant in Schroeder’s lawsuit, won a Medtronic President’s Club award in 2016 for his sales. This annual recognition rewards Medtronic’s highest performers, who have demonstrated exceptional performance in meeting their revenue and growth targets, according to former employees. Many also said it’s the highest award the company bestows to sales representatives. 
    “This is not something that can be overlooked or missed,” Schroeder said. 
    Winger did not respond to CNBC’s request for comment. 
    In a deposition for this case, Winger was asked whether he recalled receiving any training about the fact that purchasing meals for federal employees was prohibited. He responded that he did not recall any training during his time at Medtronic.
    During his deposition, Winger also denied providing kickbacks at the Dole VA. 

    Questions about patient safety

    While conducting his internal investigation, Ament requested one of his nurses to pull a sample of patient data for veterans treated for peripheral artery disease. This sample, which was unsealed as part of Schroeder’s lawsuit, found that an average of seven devices were used per patient. One patient had 33 devices placed in their body. 
    “Where can you put 33 devices in one patient?” said Dr. Kim Hodgson, a retired vascular surgeon and the former president of the Society for Vascular Surgery. 
    Schroeder retained Hodgson as an expert for this case to review patient data once the VA provides more detail beyond the initial sample. Without the detailed patient information, Hodgson said he cannot make a definitive determination as to whether medical inappropriateness occurred. But in an interview with CNBC he said this sample suggests some patients may have been improperly treated. 
    Schroeder said he believes these veterans could be facing significant consequences. According to Medtronic’s labeling on one of its atherectomy devices, it lists some of the adverse outcomes as “amputation” and “death.”
    “It enrages you,” he said. “These aren’t reversible. What’s done is done.”
    The Dole VA’s investigation found that amputations among hospital patients increased sixfold during the period of alleged misconduct. However, the veterans hospital did not determine whether there was a direct correlation between the procedures and the rise in amputation rates. 
    In a statement to CNBC, the VA said its investigation found a large increase of costs at the Dole VA were related to purchases of Medtronic devices. It also said “patient safety is our top priority” and “to date has found no quality of care issues.”
    In a recent court filing, the VA said 59 veteran patients are having their medical records examined for “possible substandard care issues.”
    ProPublica previously wrote about Schroeder’s lawsuit. In response to learning about the allegations of misconduct at the Dole VA, Kansas senators urged the VA to contact patients that these procedures may have impacted.
    Due to privacy laws, the identities of the patients who underwent these procedures have not been made public.
    Hodgson also said the science supporting atherectomy procedures is flimsy. Hodgson says he considers the clinical trials that Medtronic uses to market its products to be “fairly low evidence trials.” 
    In a statement to CNBC, Xiong said that the procedure is a “safe and effective frontline therapy” and that its devices “demonstrated safety across multiple clinical trials.” 
    Xiong also said Medtronic’s atherectomy devices are supported by more than 15-peer reviewed studies. This includes a study called DEFINITIVE LE, which Medtronic funded. Xiong said it is “the largest independently adjudicated study of an atherectomy procedure ever conducted.” 
    The Food and Drug Administration approves all medical devices. One process for approval is called the 510(k) pathway. This fast-tracks devices onto the market, with no need for comprehensive studies to be done. Companies just have to prove their product is similar to ones already out there.
    Medtronic received FDA approval for its atherectomy devices through this pathway. 
    In a video deposition conducted as part of Schroeder’s lawsuit in February, Medtronic’s chief medical officer, John Laird, was asked whether the technology regarding atherectomy procedures was approved with definitive clinical data. He said that it was approved with data that was “good enough” to allow the FDA to clear the devices for use.

    Video deposition of John Laird, Medtronic’s current Chief Medical Officer, taken as part of this whistleblower lawsuit.
    United States ex rel. Schroeder v. Medtronic

    Laird declined an interview with CNBC. 
    But in 2015, at the same time the lawsuit alleges these devices were being inappropriately used in veterans, Laird gave a presentation at a University of California symposium on vascular surgery, saying “the quality of data supporting the use of atherectomy devices” is “poor.” 
    In a statement to CNBC, Xiong said, “Since Dr. Laird’s presentation in 2015, several additional clinical studies have been conducted.”
    In 2021, the FDA issued a Class I Recall for one of Medtronic’s atherectomy devices. According to the FDA, this is the “most serious type of recall” because issues with these products can cause “serious injuries” or “death.”
    The FDA reported 163 complaints, 55 injuries and no deaths reported regarding this device. 
    In his 2023 deposition, Laird said showing the benefit of atherectomy over other therapies would require “500 or more patients” and cost up to “$50 million.”
    When questioned about the fact that Medtronic makes billions each year selling these devices, Laird said “that’s not how it works.”
    Medtronic’s latest annual filing shows it had nearly $2.4 billion in sales in part from devices used to treat peripheral vascular disease – nearly 8% of the company’s total sales for 2022.
    Boua said the company doesn’t share device specific sales in its public filings.
    –CNBC’s Samantha Woodward contributed to this report.
    Email tips to [email protected] More

  • in

    Illumina hit with record $476 million fine for closing Grail deal without EU approval

    European Union regulators fined Illumina a record 432 million euros ($476 million) for closing its acquisition of cancer test developer Grail without first securing regulatory approval.
    A spokesperson for San Diego-based Illumina told CNBC the DNA sequencing company would appeal the fine. 
    The European Commission last year blocked the $7.1 billion Grail deal over concerns it would stifle innovation and consumer choice in the emerging market for cancer detection tests. 

    Rafael Henrique | Lightrocket | Getty Images

    European Union regulators on Wednesday fined Illumina a record 432 million euros ($476 million) for closing its acquisition of cancer test developer Grail without first securing regulatory approval. 
    The fine from the European Commission, the EU’s executive body, amounts to 10% of San Diego-based Illumina’s turnover. That is the maximum allowed under EU merger rules.

    The Illumina fine exceeds the commission’s previous largest merger regulation fine of $125 million, or 1% of annual turnover, imposed on telecommunications company Altice in 2018. 
    An Illumina spokesperson on Wednesday said the DNA sequencing company would appeal the fine. Illumina has already put aside $453 million to cover a potential maximum fine of 10% of turnover, according to a regulatory filing from earlier this year. 
    And the deal has already cost Illumina great sums of money. The company’s market value has fallen to roughly $29 billion from around $75 billion in August 2021, the month it closed its acquisition of Grail. 
    But Illumina maintains that the transaction would “maximize value for shareholders” and save lives. 
    The commission said in a release that Illumina “strategically weighed up the risk of a gun-jumping fine against the risk of having to pay a high break-up fee if it failed to takeover Grail.” Gun-jumping refers to the act of completing a merger before it receives regulatory clearance.

    Illumina also “considered the potential profits it could obtain by jumping the gun, even if it were ultimately forced to divest Grail,” the commission said. “It then intentionally decided to proceed and to close the deal while the Commission was still investigating the transaction that was ultimately prohibited.” 
    “This is a very serious infringement, which requires the imposition of a proportionate fine, with the aim of deterring such conduct,” the European Commission continued.
    The commission added that Grail “played an active role in the infringement.” It issued Grail, which is based in Menlo Park, California, a separate “symbolic fine” of around $1,100. It is the first time the commission has imposed a fine on the target of an acquisition.

    Executive Vice President of the European Commission for A Europe Fit for the Digital Age Margrethe Vestager is talking to media in the Berlaymont, the EU Commission headquarter on September 6, 2022 in Brussels, Belgium.
    Thierry Monasse | Getty Images

    The European Commission last July alleged that closing the Grail acquisition was a “serious breach” of EU merger regulation that could lead to “hefty fines.” 
    Two months later, the commission blocked the deal over concerns it would stifle innovation and consumer choice in the emerging market for cancer detection tests. 
    Illumina has appealed the European Commission’s decision, arguing that the agency lacks jurisdiction to block the merger between the two U.S. companies. 
    Illumina expects a final decision on an appeal in late 2023 or early 2024. That’s also when the company expects a decision on its appeal of a similar order by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. 
    Still, the company has said it will divest Grail if it loses either appeal. 
    Illumina believes it can expand the availability, affordability and profitability of Grail’s Galleri test, which can screen for more than 50 types of cancers through a single blood draw.
    U.S. Republican lawmakers, a dozen state attorneys general and several advocacy groups have similarly argued that the merger could promote the widespread availability of the life-saving technology. Those parties sided with Illumina in the company’s ongoing legal battle with the FTC last month.

    CNBC Health & Science

    Read CNBC’s latest health coverage:

    Illumina’s determination to keep Grail sparked a heated proxy showdown with activist investor Carl Icahn, who holds a 1.4% stake in the company. 
    Much of Icahn’s opposition stemmed from Illumina’s decision to close the acquisition without gaining approval from antitrust regulators in the E.U. and U.S. 
    Illumina shareholders voted to oust former board chair John Thompson in May and install one of Icahn’s nominees. 
    Weeks later, CEO Francis deSouza abruptly stepped down from his post despite surviving the proxy vote. 
    Now, Illumina is searching for its new CEO while implementing a cost-cutting plan designed to shore up the company’s shrinking operating margins.  More