IOS UPDATE! A Question of Value , Supervalu Litigation , Sounds Familiar
IOS UPDATE
A QUESTION OF VALU
SUPERVALU LITIGATION
Research of the International Outsourcing Services indictments found that Supervalu, one of the nations leading food services company, a publicly traded corporation, rated 153 in the Fortune 500 listings, is a 25% shareholder of IOS.
IOS recently separated from the Criminal Indictment, is not relieved of it’s responsibility of cooperating with the U.S. Attorney’s prosecution of the principles of IOS, namely Thomas Chris Balsiger et al.
A look into Supervalu and its affiliation with IOS finds more than just a shareholder, but a business partner. Supervalu has built a business on development of gobbling-up small community grocery chains over the past several years. Good business, expansion of the bottom line sometimes at the expense of the local community. Lets Take A Look at the case of Jonathan F. Johnson, Richmond, Virginia.
In this matter, Johnson v. Supervalu, Inc. and Richfood, Inc., Circuit Court, Richmond. Virginia, file # L5785-4. Mr. Johnson has filed a $25 Million Dollar claim for compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damage claim. This is an ongoing trial.
Mr. Johnson, a 40 something African American businessman is President and CEO of Marketplace Holdings, Inc., The Market, LLC, Community Pride, Inc. and R&S Stores, Inc. in the State of Virginia. All of these businesses are grocery stores operated by Mr. Johnson. He has been in the grocery business for more than 23 years, and has been recognized as a leader and authority in the grocery industry. Particularly to the establishment and operation of retail grocery stores in urban markets and the marketing of consumer products to minority consumers. In 1999 Johnson was considered the owner of the nation’s largest African American owned grocery chain.
For 12 years, it’s claimed in the law suit, that Johnson and his companies purchased grocery products from Richfood and/or Supervalu based on specific agreements between the parties. At times both Richfood and Supervalu extended credit to the “Companies”, as well as warehousing, accounting and other services to the Companies, a common practice in the grocery business.
In 2001 a dispute between the parties arose at which time an agreement was reached between the Companies, Supervalu and Richfood. A settlement agreement was reached and specific obligations were created by the Settlement Agreement. One specific form of the agreement was that the Companies were subject to Supervalu’s “standard screening approval process and standard lending practices” As a result of the multi-year supply agreement, the defendants, Supervalu and Richfood are the “EXCLUSIVE” supplier for the Plaintiff’s retail stores.
Johnson discovered in 2000 that his Companies were being subjected to a variety of questionable business practices, such as being “SHORTED” on product deliveries, failing to receive timely credits and rebates and other improper charges.
Johnson alleges that after inquiries from manufacturers, without his knowledge, the “Companies” had allegedly been involved in a series of transactions by which the defendants, Supervalu and Richfood collected manufacturer’s rebates on products but not actually purchased by the defendants through the “Companies” stores.
Sound familiar! International Outsourcing Services (IOS) business operators have been indicted in a widespread consumer coupon scam that involved manufacturer’s consumer coupons and rebate items. The relationship between IOS and Supervalu is a shareholder relationship, whereas Supervalu owns approximately 25% of the shares of IOS.
A common practice identified that the Johnson matter is a scheme to defraud by a means of diverting product. Johnson’s confirms that his companies joined Richfood in a scheme with a value identified as $1.5 million worth of diverting sales. In most of the cases the Market Place Holdings, Inc. (MPH) would secure a discounted product price in the form of rebates or a reduced price from a vendor or broker purchase extra cases of the discounted products, then sell those cases to another retailer who would pick up the products at MPH stores or the Richfood warehouse.
It’s alleged that Richfood implemented the scheme in a manner that did not involve product movement and left MPH liable for uncollected bill backs. Analysis by MPH through January 2003 its reported in the complaint filed by Mr. Johnson, that a total of $102,946.03 in billback debited from MPH from Richfood and that MPH was not able to collect from manufacturers. MPH’s inability to collect these billbacks arises from Richfood’s inability or unwillingness to provide product movement data showing the products were actually purchased and sold.
MPH admitted that it participated fully, but was unaware there was no product movement in the illegal Richfood scheme. In May 2003, Supervalu became concerned about the decrease in the level of sales at “The Market” and wanted to increase sales in the grocery department. Johnson informed Supervalu that better pricing from Supervalu would improve sales. One month later, its alleged, that Supervalu began giving MPH what was represented as the “GreatValu” pricing on orders for all of his stores.
GreatValu store orders and purchases its groceries independently and the products are delivered to each store by SuperValu. The complaint further reports that SuperValu reports the quality of GreatValu sales “movement” for purposes of obtaining “billback” rebates from manufacturers.
Its alleged that while SuperValu represented that MPH was then receiving GreatrValu pricing, MPH did not. Johnson, MPH’s owner operator, learned from several manufacturers that SuperValu reports MPH “movement” as part of the total GreatValu movements for purposes of obtaining billbacks. SuperValu failed to inform Johnson and MPH of this “movement” reporting practice.
Other similar issues suggested by owner’s of “Shop N Save” grocery stores in Pennsylvania alleges that after agreements with SuperValu, they pulled out of a project that he had committed $4.4. Million dollars in construction. Mark Scozio of Penn Township Pennsylvania filed a federal civil action against SuperValu alleging a “Breach of Contract” and “Negligent Misrepresentation”. He accused SupervValu of misuse of advertising money contributed by the Scozio franchise and damaged the franchise sales with its Greenpoints program, a customer incentive venture that SuperValu started the previous year, 2002. Scozio family and Mark Scozio owned six grocery stores, of which were franchises of SuperValu, under three different Supervalu grocery store names, Shop N Save and Save A Lot.
It’s alleged, SuperValu mingled $1.4 million of Scozio advertising money for the benefits of Foodland retailers, a competitor of Scozio. The tension between Scozio’s and SuperValu heightened when SuperValu added 19 new corporate “Shop N Save” stores in the Pittsburgh area, closing in on Scozio’s limited territory and limiting growth.
The Scozio Group realigned themselves with other markets and left SuperValu that want to control most of their business operations.
It seems that the practice of control by SuperValu is more than an investment into local small grocery chains. Control of the product shipments, financing assistance, partnering between SuperValu and the local or regional grocery stores in the expectation of expansion of the local grocery chain, the shipping of products to the local stores, the rebates that would go to the store operations becomes part of SuperValu financial position, Manufacturers rebates alleged being diverted to other business enterprises of SuperValu, while the small grocery store partner awaits rebate funding and special pricing for selected special products offered as an incentive discount by manufacturers to have grocery stores push their products.
What’s going on here?
Today, June 4, 2007, in Richmond Virginia, Circuit Court the civil suit brought by Mr. Johnson, a local African American businessman who had partnered with SuperValu, heard the testimony of a Senior SuperValu executive. The executive was to counter one of Johnson’s primary witnesses, a former employee of SuperValu, as having no credibility. At the end of the day, Circuit Judge Margaret P. Spencer refused a renewed effort by SuperValu to strike Johnson’s evidence in the case.
Susan Rydberg, the former SuperValu employee who worked in the technology related department, returned to court today for the second time during the trial. Today she presented a letter of commendation from SuperValu Chairmen Jeffrey Noodle for her work. She also presented numerous e-mails that suggested she attended meetings with high-level company executives. The Supervalu executive testified last week that Rydberg was unknown to them and was not part of top-level discussions of the company’s business plans.
It’s apparent that Judge Spencer agreed with Johnson’s attorney and the credibility of Rydberg, by refusing to strike Johnson’s evidence in the case.
What’s going on here? Is this business practices gone wrong, or is it something more that may be corrupt business practices. Only time, documents and witnesses will tell. Perhaps we’ll see a cooperating witness in the IOS Federal Prosecution step up to the plate and bat for the bleachers to free himself of the criminal liability they face in the IOS fraud accusations. Maybe then the schemes will open up to expose those involved in the diverting and rebate programs. This all has an effect on the pricing of groceries on the shelves in every marketplace. Or, is the practice of diverting inventory a legitimate business practice and the manufacturers accept then practice of the rebates so that brand managers reach their goals and those bonuses are given based on productivity.
Who’s looking out for you the consumer?
SuperValu we’re watching this one!
We’ll report on the results when a decision is returned.
Any Opinions, you report, we’ll report.
Send us your comments.
A QUESTION OF VALU
SUPERVALU LITIGATION
Research of the International Outsourcing Services indictments found that Supervalu, one of the nations leading food services company, a publicly traded corporation, rated 153 in the Fortune 500 listings, is a 25% shareholder of IOS.
IOS recently separated from the Criminal Indictment, is not relieved of it’s responsibility of cooperating with the U.S. Attorney’s prosecution of the principles of IOS, namely Thomas Chris Balsiger et al.
A look into Supervalu and its affiliation with IOS finds more than just a shareholder, but a business partner. Supervalu has built a business on development of gobbling-up small community grocery chains over the past several years. Good business, expansion of the bottom line sometimes at the expense of the local community. Lets Take A Look at the case of Jonathan F. Johnson, Richmond, Virginia.
In this matter, Johnson v. Supervalu, Inc. and Richfood, Inc., Circuit Court, Richmond. Virginia, file # L5785-4. Mr. Johnson has filed a $25 Million Dollar claim for compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damage claim. This is an ongoing trial.
Mr. Johnson, a 40 something African American businessman is President and CEO of Marketplace Holdings, Inc., The Market, LLC, Community Pride, Inc. and R&S Stores, Inc. in the State of Virginia. All of these businesses are grocery stores operated by Mr. Johnson. He has been in the grocery business for more than 23 years, and has been recognized as a leader and authority in the grocery industry. Particularly to the establishment and operation of retail grocery stores in urban markets and the marketing of consumer products to minority consumers. In 1999 Johnson was considered the owner of the nation’s largest African American owned grocery chain.
For 12 years, it’s claimed in the law suit, that Johnson and his companies purchased grocery products from Richfood and/or Supervalu based on specific agreements between the parties. At times both Richfood and Supervalu extended credit to the “Companies”, as well as warehousing, accounting and other services to the Companies, a common practice in the grocery business.
In 2001 a dispute between the parties arose at which time an agreement was reached between the Companies, Supervalu and Richfood. A settlement agreement was reached and specific obligations were created by the Settlement Agreement. One specific form of the agreement was that the Companies were subject to Supervalu’s “standard screening approval process and standard lending practices” As a result of the multi-year supply agreement, the defendants, Supervalu and Richfood are the “EXCLUSIVE” supplier for the Plaintiff’s retail stores.
Johnson discovered in 2000 that his Companies were being subjected to a variety of questionable business practices, such as being “SHORTED” on product deliveries, failing to receive timely credits and rebates and other improper charges.
Johnson alleges that after inquiries from manufacturers, without his knowledge, the “Companies” had allegedly been involved in a series of transactions by which the defendants, Supervalu and Richfood collected manufacturer’s rebates on products but not actually purchased by the defendants through the “Companies” stores.
Sound familiar! International Outsourcing Services (IOS) business operators have been indicted in a widespread consumer coupon scam that involved manufacturer’s consumer coupons and rebate items. The relationship between IOS and Supervalu is a shareholder relationship, whereas Supervalu owns approximately 25% of the shares of IOS.
A common practice identified that the Johnson matter is a scheme to defraud by a means of diverting product. Johnson’s confirms that his companies joined Richfood in a scheme with a value identified as $1.5 million worth of diverting sales. In most of the cases the Market Place Holdings, Inc. (MPH) would secure a discounted product price in the form of rebates or a reduced price from a vendor or broker purchase extra cases of the discounted products, then sell those cases to another retailer who would pick up the products at MPH stores or the Richfood warehouse.
It’s alleged that Richfood implemented the scheme in a manner that did not involve product movement and left MPH liable for uncollected bill backs. Analysis by MPH through January 2003 its reported in the complaint filed by Mr. Johnson, that a total of $102,946.03 in billback debited from MPH from Richfood and that MPH was not able to collect from manufacturers. MPH’s inability to collect these billbacks arises from Richfood’s inability or unwillingness to provide product movement data showing the products were actually purchased and sold.
MPH admitted that it participated fully, but was unaware there was no product movement in the illegal Richfood scheme. In May 2003, Supervalu became concerned about the decrease in the level of sales at “The Market” and wanted to increase sales in the grocery department. Johnson informed Supervalu that better pricing from Supervalu would improve sales. One month later, its alleged, that Supervalu began giving MPH what was represented as the “GreatValu” pricing on orders for all of his stores.
GreatValu store orders and purchases its groceries independently and the products are delivered to each store by SuperValu. The complaint further reports that SuperValu reports the quality of GreatValu sales “movement” for purposes of obtaining “billback” rebates from manufacturers.
Its alleged that while SuperValu represented that MPH was then receiving GreatrValu pricing, MPH did not. Johnson, MPH’s owner operator, learned from several manufacturers that SuperValu reports MPH “movement” as part of the total GreatValu movements for purposes of obtaining billbacks. SuperValu failed to inform Johnson and MPH of this “movement” reporting practice.
Other similar issues suggested by owner’s of “Shop N Save” grocery stores in Pennsylvania alleges that after agreements with SuperValu, they pulled out of a project that he had committed $4.4. Million dollars in construction. Mark Scozio of Penn Township Pennsylvania filed a federal civil action against SuperValu alleging a “Breach of Contract” and “Negligent Misrepresentation”. He accused SupervValu of misuse of advertising money contributed by the Scozio franchise and damaged the franchise sales with its Greenpoints program, a customer incentive venture that SuperValu started the previous year, 2002. Scozio family and Mark Scozio owned six grocery stores, of which were franchises of SuperValu, under three different Supervalu grocery store names, Shop N Save and Save A Lot.
It’s alleged, SuperValu mingled $1.4 million of Scozio advertising money for the benefits of Foodland retailers, a competitor of Scozio. The tension between Scozio’s and SuperValu heightened when SuperValu added 19 new corporate “Shop N Save” stores in the Pittsburgh area, closing in on Scozio’s limited territory and limiting growth.
The Scozio Group realigned themselves with other markets and left SuperValu that want to control most of their business operations.
It seems that the practice of control by SuperValu is more than an investment into local small grocery chains. Control of the product shipments, financing assistance, partnering between SuperValu and the local or regional grocery stores in the expectation of expansion of the local grocery chain, the shipping of products to the local stores, the rebates that would go to the store operations becomes part of SuperValu financial position, Manufacturers rebates alleged being diverted to other business enterprises of SuperValu, while the small grocery store partner awaits rebate funding and special pricing for selected special products offered as an incentive discount by manufacturers to have grocery stores push their products.
What’s going on here?
Today, June 4, 2007, in Richmond Virginia, Circuit Court the civil suit brought by Mr. Johnson, a local African American businessman who had partnered with SuperValu, heard the testimony of a Senior SuperValu executive. The executive was to counter one of Johnson’s primary witnesses, a former employee of SuperValu, as having no credibility. At the end of the day, Circuit Judge Margaret P. Spencer refused a renewed effort by SuperValu to strike Johnson’s evidence in the case.
Susan Rydberg, the former SuperValu employee who worked in the technology related department, returned to court today for the second time during the trial. Today she presented a letter of commendation from SuperValu Chairmen Jeffrey Noodle for her work. She also presented numerous e-mails that suggested she attended meetings with high-level company executives. The Supervalu executive testified last week that Rydberg was unknown to them and was not part of top-level discussions of the company’s business plans.
It’s apparent that Judge Spencer agreed with Johnson’s attorney and the credibility of Rydberg, by refusing to strike Johnson’s evidence in the case.
What’s going on here? Is this business practices gone wrong, or is it something more that may be corrupt business practices. Only time, documents and witnesses will tell. Perhaps we’ll see a cooperating witness in the IOS Federal Prosecution step up to the plate and bat for the bleachers to free himself of the criminal liability they face in the IOS fraud accusations. Maybe then the schemes will open up to expose those involved in the diverting and rebate programs. This all has an effect on the pricing of groceries on the shelves in every marketplace. Or, is the practice of diverting inventory a legitimate business practice and the manufacturers accept then practice of the rebates so that brand managers reach their goals and those bonuses are given based on productivity.
Who’s looking out for you the consumer?
SuperValu we’re watching this one!
We’ll report on the results when a decision is returned.
Any Opinions, you report, we’ll report.
Send us your comments.
Labels: 2007, Coupon Fraud, Crime, IOS, Mafia
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home