Author: Alerts CC

In a recent announcement that shook the international retail industry to its core, representatives for the U.S.-based chain store Target announced that the company would be closing all of its Canadian locations. Even though the company has only operated in Canada for less than two years, financial reports have shown that the Canadian stores experienced losses for the majority of that time, totaling about $2 billion collectively.

With 133 store locations spread across the country, Target’s decision will leave an estimated 17,600 people without jobs. Target officials state that the company is trying to create a funding plan worth $70 million in order to provide its employees with 16 weeks’ worth of pay after stores close (although it’s unlikely that Target’s senior executives will earn the full $160,000 paycheck that Canadian financial executives often receive per year).

The company has already stated that it has filed for — and received — legal protection under the federal Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) regarding outstanding debts. Under this legislation, Target will be given time for restructuring before lenders can begin demanding repayments.

Analysts estimate that it will cost the company between $500 million and $600 million to shut down its Canadian stores, but because the company is already facing billions of dollars worth of sales losses, the total cost of shutting down operations could be as much as $5.4 billion.

The decision has come as a bit of a shock to many Americans. It’s no secret that Target has struggled with management in its Canadian stores, but many consumers and retailers alike forget although the two countries may share a border, that doesn’t ensure that they’ll share consumer tastes and overall success.

Target is now joining retail clothing companies Maxx, Smart Set, and Jacob, which have already closed their Canadian stores due to poor sales.

According to chairman and CEO Brian Cornell, Target is hopeful that the closings of Canadian locations will allow the company to concentrate more on the future success of its American stores.

The hysterectomy, a surgery that removes the uterus, is commonly used to treat uterine fibroids, gynecologic cancer, endometriosis, uterine prolapse, abnormal vaginal bleeding, and chronic pelvic pain. After the cesarean section, it’s the second most commonly performed surgery on women. Though it destroys patients’ fertility, it can be a life-saving operation.

However, a new study suggests that one in five women who underwent the hysterectomies may not have needed to.

According to Dr. Daniel Morgan of the University of Michigan Medical School’s Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the study’s findings “provide evidence that alternatives to hysterectomy are underutilized in women undergoing hysterectomy for abnormal uterine bleeding, uterine fibroids, endometriosis or pelvic pain.”

Though rates of hysterectomy in the U.S. are falling, there are still more than 400,000 of the procedures carried out each year in the United States. Yet, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’s guidelines state that health care practitioners recommend patients with gynecologic disease undergo other treatments, like endometrial ablation. Hysterectomy should really only be a final option.

For their study, which was published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, researchers set out to analyze whether these guidelines were being followed, and whether the pathology following a hysterectomy supported the need for one.

The researchers found that a startling 37.7% of women had no documentation that they’d undergone an alternative treatment before undergoing a hysterectomy. Even worse, the researchers’ pathological findings following surgery among 18.3% of women — nearly one in five — didn’t support the need for a hysterectomy.

Basically, the study’s finding suggest that doctors aren’t following guidelines, that more than one in three women didn’t undergo an alternative procedure before having their fertility destroyed, and that one in five women didn’t even need a hysterectomy.

If your doctor recommends a hysterectomy, you may want to get a second opinion.

On Thursday, January 8, President Obama officially announced that the Federal Housing Administration will reduce premiums on FHA mortgages. Almost immediately, Republicans denounced the decision, pointing out the FHA’s fund is below its statutory minimum. Supporters, however, argued that lowering the insurance rates could give thousands the opportunity to buy their own homes, which could benefit a number of areas where recovery from the housing crisis has been slow. But how will the premium cut affect the United States as a whole, and what does it mean for the American people?

Currently, homeowners who take out an FHA mortgage pay 1.35% of the loan amount every year, a cheaper rate than many other options in the U.S. Under the proposed cut, however, borrowers would pay 0.85% of their loan amount, meaning a homeowner with a $200,000 FHA mortgage would move from paying $2,700 to $1,700 if they refinanced under the new rate. This change follows a recent reduction of the FHA’s already low down payments. While the amounts vary from state to state, experts have said that some residents in places like Florida have seen their payments drop from $417,000 to $285,000.

According to the Housing and Urban Development Secretary, Julian Castro, the new loan premiums could benefit a projected 800,000 borrowers per year. Additionally, more than 100,000 current homeowners are expected to refinance their loans this year to take advantage of the lower prices. Because of these factors, analysts suspect that spring home buying and building could see a needed boost across the U.S.

However, Republican lawmakers aren’t so sure. After Obama announced the change in a speech in Phoenix, AZ, a number of politicians responded by arguing that the reduction could spark another housing crisis, especially when combined with other low down-payment measures currently being offered by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They also took issue with the current state of the FHA itself, which is below its required minimum, and the reputation of the loans; Senators Bob Corker of Tennessee and David Vitter of Louisiana, for example, have argued the change could cause government-issued loans to become under-priced.

These claims have been dismissed by a number of experts and lawmakers, including Castro, who pointed out that the lower premiums would only prevent the FHA from reaching the minimum by a few more months. Proponents also say that the reduction is designed to stabilize the federal lending market. In recent months, many homeowners have chosen to refinance their homes under the lower premiums offered by Fannie and Freddie, making the FHA less able to compete with these organizations. But with nearly 373,000 single-family loans and 100,000 refinancings conducted through the FHA in 2014, the reputation of the administration still seems to be no issue.

Obama also took care to assure skeptics that the FHA’s new loans would be meted out carefully. While many current borrowers have credit scores that would be considered high risk by traditional lenders, he stated that the organization would not be providing loans to those who could not afford them, as had been done in years past. Encouraging borrowers to avoid purchasing things they could not afford, he said that the lower premiums would enable responsible homeowners to give the housing market a needed boost.

But who should take advantage of the new premiums? It depends on the situation. Experts are predicting that the biggest benefits will likely be seen by those looking to refinance, especially borrowers who were unable to complete the process in 2012 or 2013 or who currently have higher premiums. Likewise, aspiring homeowners able to afford the FHA’s down payments and new premiums, lower though they may be, should consider this option. However, some are still cautious: the reduction has put pressure on the FHA’s rates, causing prices to tighten. Will this hamper the reduction’s success or present no obstacle to home sales and refinancing? Only time will tell.

On road trips and long journeys, roadside signs are often a welcome sight, marking your progress from location to location and hinting at lives different from your own. But as pleasant as they seem might seem to the traveler, they often symbolize something just as powerful to the towns and cities they belong to. The city of Toledo, OH, for example, recently erected new roadside signs bearing the city slogan that has been used for over a century.

Toledo’s slogan “You Will Do Better in Toledo” was first unveiled in 1913 on a sign topping the city’s Valentine Theatre. Illuminated by 7,000 light bulbs, the message had been chosen out of thousands of submissions in a contest held by the Toledo Commerce Club. In recent years, the catchphrase has appeared on T-shirts, pint glasses, baby clothes and more as people in the area have reclaimed the optimistic motto.

Recently, the city decided to continue the trend by adding the slogan to their roadside signs. On Wednesday, December 17, the 101st anniversary of the slogan’s release, the city installed the first of 55 road signs, all reading “You Will Do Better in Toledo”. To honor the original sign at Valentine Theatre, the black and white board uses vintage type surrounded by dots, recalling the lightbulbs that illuminated the message a century ago.

The new roadside signs will replace older, blue and yellow signs that read “Welcome to Tole-do!” and featured the University of Toledo’s rocket logo. While city officials have commented that the university is a key part of the community, they say that the new signs better represent the city as a whole. The city has not yet decided what they will do with the old signs, but say that many people in the area are interested in buying them.

Although the signs are a fairly recent change, the Toledo community already seems extremely supportive. Many people, already familiar with the “You Will Do Better in Toledo” slogan, say that it represents and encourages the city’s entrepreneurial spirit. Moreover, because the Valentine Theatre sign was taken down in 1926 and eventually lost to history, the renewal of a piece of the city’s legacy has been welcomed.

“Signs are be a great way to communicate the message and express the culture of a community over and over so that it becomes a part of the way that community operates and is perceived by others,” says Mike Butler of Landmark Sign Company. “Using signs to communicate that message throughout any community creates the highest number and best quality of impressions versus most any other medium.”

The new road signs were made by the city’s transportation division sign shop at the cost of roughly $65 each, including labor and installation. In total, the city manufactured about 85 signs, costing the city $5,530. In the next several weeks, 55 signs will be installed along the city limits, while the remainder will be saved to replace any that are damaged.

In late November, Buffalo, New York did its best to endure a snow storm of epic proportions. After a record seven feet of snow fell, many houses suffered extensive damage, including broken windows, cracked walls, collapsed roofs and other structural issues.

“I don’t have a house,” said Tami Diestler, whose home wrecked from the storm. “I cried. Today, as soon as I walked in here, that was it.”

Now, many Buffalonians are trying to wade through the process of filing homeowners insurance claims, which is proving to be a bit tricky.

Though most homeowners insurance policies cover storms including hail, tornado, and wind damage, other natural events like floods and earthquakes usually require additional coverage. Many homeowners are often surprised by the details of their policies.

Luckily, the majority of policies cover damage caused by the weight of ice and snow, but many Buffalo homeowners have come across one of the unfortunate, aforementioned surprises. Two events causing damage simultaneously do not get covered by insurance because of anti-concurrent causation provisions, which appear in many policies.

For example, say a policy covered both ice and snow damage. If the house was damaged by ice and snow at the same time, the policyholder wouldn’t be covered for either.

“It’s going to be a very big dilemma for adjusters, people involved, and insurance carriers,” said Steven Vanuga, regional vice president of Adjusters International Basloe, Levin and Cuccaro. “You have to go back to the basics of what is the determination of a claim. What is the definition of flood, what is the definition of collapse, what is the definition of ice water backup and water coming in the areas.”

To make matters even worse, it seems that the bigger the claim, the lengthier the review. According to a 2014 survey by Consumer Reports, about four in 10 people who tried to file a homeowners insurance claim of over $30,000 in damages ran into such issues as delays, slow payouts, and under-compensation.

Although Buffalo seems to have weathered through the worst of it, the road to recovery is steep, and covered in red tape.

Luckily, public adjusters can help. They work with clients to figure out what type of damage occurred first so that they can then collect on those damages. Though their services aren’t free, it’s worth hiring a public adjuster when dealing with a big claim, as it will likely mean a more timely, fair payout with less hassle.

There are approximately 46,523 divorces filed each week in the United States, but one historic divorce in Florida last week has sparked renewed discussions about civil rights. The reason? It was the first formal divorce granted to a gay couple in Florida history.

The southern state has been locked in a debate over the constitutionality of its same-sex marriage ban since it was written into the constitution in 2008, much to the detriment of Heather Brassner and Megan Lade. Brassner pursued a divorce from her estranged partner for five years before Broward County Curcuit Judge Dale Cohen finally dissolved their civil union last week.

Cohen made waves in August when he ruled that Florida’s gay marriage ban violated the equal protection and due process guaranteed by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment. He joined several other judges across the state in declaring the ban unconstitutional.

So what does this mean for gay marriage in the state?

There’s still a ways to go before same-sex marriage licenses will be issued in Broward County. Nevertheless, the ruling will have wider ramifications; out-of-state gay marriages will have to be recognized in Florida now, for instance.

“This is a historic day,” Brassner’s attorney Nancy Brodzki told Wink News. “This is the first divorce for a same-sex couple. It will not be the last divorce.”

Brodzki suspects that Attorney General Pam Bondi will appeal the decision, as she has for many that rejected the gay marriage ban. So far Bondi hasn’t responded, likely because her office is fighting detractors of the same-sex marriage ban on several fronts.

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle declared the same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional as well, but Bondi filed an emergency petition to keep the ban in place until Jan. 5 to give her time to appeal the decision.

Bondi claims that striking down the ban would result in two sets of marriage laws and general confusion between different counties.

An Illinois woman is trying to trademark Eric Garner’s last words — “I can’t breathe” — for use on T-shirts and hoodies.

On July 17, white police officers confronted 43-year-old African-American Eric Garner over the distribution of unlicensed cigarettes. A friend of Garner’s caught the incident on video. Though Garner resisted arrest, he did so non-violently, saying “Every time you see me you want to arrest me, I’m tired of this. This stops today… I didn’t do nothing… I’m minding my business, officer…”

Officer Daniel Pantaleo then placed his left arm around Garner’s neck, and his right arm up below Garner’s right arm, who then fell. As Pantaleo and three other white officers tell Garner to put his hands behind his head, Garner repeatedly tells them “I can’t breathe,” which then became his final words.

On December 3, a grand jury decided not to indict Pantaleo, prompting protesters across the nation to take action. They have been rallying under Garner’s dying words. They put the phrase on signs and t-shirts, which are a great way to unify groups and organizations, and took to the streets to protest.

On December 13, 57-year-old Catherine Crump — who is not in any way related to the late Garner — applied for a legal registration of the phrase that has become a symbolic slogan for the masses protesting racism and police brutality.

According to The Smoking Gun, Crump says she hadn’t consulted with Garner’s before filing her trademark application, but that she isn’t seeking to profit off of the phrase. However, Crump also claims in her trademark application to have been using the phrase commercially since August 18. She also declined to explain what other possible motive she could have for wanting to trademark the rallying cry.

“If she’s not the first person to make these T-shirts, she’s going to be out of luck,” said University of Chicago law professor Jonathan Masur. He explained that if she was not the first person to print “I Can’t Breathe” on a t-shirt or hoodie, then she won’t receive the trademark, even if she was the first person to submit a trademark application for it and regardless of whether or not anyone else files.

If she does win the trademark, others who produce t-shirts or hoodies with “I Can’t Breathe” would have to pay royalties to her. The trademark, according to Masur, could conceivably “be worth a considerable amount of money. They could make a tidy sum.”

Luckily for protesters, the trademark only applies to its use on the clothing identified in the application — t-shirts and hoodies — and wouldn’t prevent them from using it on other material goods, such as protest signs, so it could still be used at demonstrations.

“You don’t get absolute monopoly rights over the words you trademark,” said Loyola University law professor Cynthia Ho, “because that would violate the basic premise of free speech.”