After years of Canada dominating the world of marijuana finance, the country’s head start is evaporating&lt… U.S. bankers are increasingly answering the call of cannabis companies.

For investment bankers willing to work in weed, the opportunity is large: With legalization spreading across the U.S., the marijuana industry is undergoing a wave of consolidation as large companies race to build a national presence. And while the federal ban on marijuana has kept big banks largely on the sidelines, veterans of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Credit Suisse Group AG are now coming on board.

Take, for instance, the MGO-Ello Alliance, a California-based group that has offered accounting and consulting services to the weed industry for the last few years. It just launched a boutique cannabis investment bank run by a Wall Street veteran called Ello Capital, which the company hopes it will grab some of the banking fees from the surge of marijuana deals.

Big banks

Ello Capital may be followed by the big investment banks if efforts in Congress to legalize marijuana banking are successful. But even if that’s the case, MGO-Ello argues that its early-entrant experience in the industry will give it an advantage over firms like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley that have massive investor networks and the ability to underwrite large deals.

“I’m confident I can go up against any banker anywhere,” said Hershel Gerson, a veteran of Credit Suisse and Macquarie Capital who’s now the chief executive officer of Ello Capital. “There are going to be a lot of foot faults getting them up to speed.”

In total, Ello Capital hired four bankers and six associates to get the investment bank off the ground. Gerson closed more than $30 billion in deals during his prior banking career, the firm said in a statement.

The rise of cannabis banking comes as investors turn their attention to the U.S. less than a year after Canada legalized marijuana for adults across the country. That has given America’s northern neighbor a head start, and a slew of reverse mergers and public offerings there has helped create the legal market in North America.

But the tide is starting to turn as Canadian companies struggle to make a profit and more U.S. states loosen marijuana regulations. In the first quarter of 2019, there were more cannabis deals targeting U.S. assets for the first time, according to Viridian Capital Advisors.

‘Overwhelming’

Viridian, based in New York, was founded in 2014 and calls itself the first licensed investment bank for cannabis. The firm says it’s turning down about 95% of calls it gets these days as family offices, hedge funds and wealthy investors look to invest in the U.S. cannabis industry.

“It’s overwhelming – we’re drowning in deal flow,” said Scott Greiper, Viridian’s president and founder.

The largest U.S. banks have started to dip their toes into the marijuana industry, with some now offering equity research on Canadian companies. Goldman Sachs and Bank of America drew attention last year by participating when Constellation Brands, the maker of Modelo and Corona, put $4 billion into Canada’s Canopy Growth Corp.

But for the most part, Canadian banks have dominated, with Canaccord Genuity and GMP Securities being the two largest players. Canaccord was recently listed as an adviser for Grassroots, which was acquired by the most-valuable U.S. marijuana company, Curaleaf Holdings Inc., in a deal worth about $875 million.

Booming market

Legal marijuana sales surged north of $10 billion in the U.S. last year, and there are now 11 states where weed is allowed for adults. The market is estimated to be larger in California alone than in Canada. Still, federal prohibition means a state-by-state patchwork of regulations governs the industry, making it tricky to formally value underlying assets, like licenses for retail stores or growing operations.

Additionally, businesses now operating in the legal weed economy sometimes have roots in the black market, making them difficult acquisition targets. In that context, the arrival of more professional bankers, as deals and consolidation increase, is welcome news, according to Christopher Male, managing director of Revel Holdings, a Florida-based cannabis fund.

“It’s moving very fast,” he said. “Everybody wants in now.”

Meal-kit company Plated is shutting down its Bronx fulfillment center and moving to a larger facility in New Jersey, a change that will cut 98 jobs in the borough.

Albertsons Companies, Plated’s parent company, notified the state Department of Labor last week that it would close the Hunts Point warehouse, opened in 2015 to handle city and other northeast deliveries. The company is shifting its fulfillment center to Totowa, N.J., about 20 miles west of Midtown. 

The Bronx warehouse is scheduled to shut down in October.

Christine Wilcox, an Albertsons spokeswoman, said the company custom-designed its new facility across the river to “optimize productivity and ensure for future innovation.” The company expects to hire 125 employees, which it said is an expansion of the staffing levels in the Bronx.

“We are encouraging [Bronx employees] to apply for positions in the Totowa fulfillment center, and will be working with them throughout this process to identify positions for as many as possible,” Wilcox said. “Those we are not able to place may be eligible for severance benefits.”

Albertsons is based in Boise, Idaho, and owns grocery chains such as Acme and Safeway. The company bought Plated in 2017 for a corporate staff in Manhattan earlier this spring, which the company said would reduce expenses and better utilize the company’s resources. Josh Hix, the company’s co-founder and CEO,

A citywide survey of New York City sidewalks will begin soon, with the goal of improving accessibility for wheelchair users, vision-impaired pedestrians and other members of the disability community.

U.S. District Court Judge George B. Daniels gave the final approval of a class action settlement resolving two separate lawsuits—the first filed by the United Spinal Association and the second by the Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York (CIDNY)—and establishing a plan that will require citywide surveys of all ramps and identify which corners need curb cuts installed or upgraded.

Susan Dooha, the executive director of CIDNY, said the streets of New York City will be safer because of these lawsuits.

“People who are blind and people who use walkers and wheelchairs shouldn’t have to take their lives in their hands while crossing the street just to go to their jobs and classes or go out with friends or family,” Dooha said in a statement.

The settlement will require the city to survey approximately 162,000 sidewalk curbs.

Part of the settlement will also require the city to create a comprehensive schedule to complete the necessary work to upgrade and maintain accessibility. The city must also submit its survey findings and plan of action to a third-party monitor.

The fight for sidewalk accessibility has been an ongoing battle for at least 25 years.

In 1994, the United Spinal Association sued the city for its failure to install curb ramps, and a 2002 settlement resulted in the city's spending millions of dollars to install ramps citywide.

The CIDNY filed a second suit in 2014, challenging the city’s dangerous pedestrian ramps in Lower Manhattan. 

The second suit charged that ramps in Lower Manhattan were crumbling, too steep to navigate and lacked detectable warnings. 

The city is required to submit the results of the first survey by Oct. 31, 2019.

At a Taxi and Limousine Commission hearing on Tuesday, the city appeared at loggerheads with the app-based vehicle operators it regulates – and with some of the drivers its new policies were meant to help.

The city painted a favorable portrait of what a “pause” on the number of app-based vehicles has achieved so far and how reducing cruising time will do even more to cut congestion. Uber and Lyft insisted they’re choking on the unintended consequences of the regulations and have no appetite for new ones.

The hearing was to solicit feedback on an extension of the yearlong “pause,” which took effect last August, and on new rules to limit the amount of time drivers can cruise in unoccupied cars within Manhattan’s core. 

“The city has experienced a vehicle license pause of one year,” said acting TLC head Bill Heinzen. “There were many predictions that bad things would happen. The issues that were raised were serious but none has proven to be true.”

He added that an extension of the pause and the reduction on cruising-empty time from the current 41% to 36% by February would “make a big impact on congestion in the city.”

But while the city sees wait times for vehicles holding steady, and growth in business in the outer boroughs, the app-based companies see a rush to add new regulations before all the data on the current ones has been weighed. 
 

“If the TLC had included recent data, it would have seen that the proposed 36% cruising cap is nearly impossible for Lyft and many of the [other] companies to achieve,” Lyft said in comments submitted to the TLC.

Uber took aim at the TLC for planning to extend the license cap and criticized the agency for moving ahead with regulations that didn’t take into account the impact that congestion pricing will have once it begins to be implemented next year.

“The TLC should understand the impact of its prior regulations as well as New York state regulations before layering on new ones,” Uber said in its comments.

Drivers complained about having to rent vehicles rather than drive their own, because they didn’t have licenses before the pause went into effect. There were also complaints about Lyft’s new policy of not letting drivers onto the Lyft app if they are in an area that doesn’t have a lot of ride requests.

The policy was enacted, Lyft has said, in response to a new minimum wage rule—one of many recent regulations targeting the app-based industry—that forces companies to pay drivers more when they have fewer customers.

City Council member Brad Lander, speaking at the hearing, accused Lyft of essentially violating the law. Drivers who take a “rider to the outer boroughs find themselves kicked off the app,” he said. “This is a complete violation of the spirit of the law.”

Lyft has maintained that the minimum wage rule forced its hand.

“The current TLC rules have led to numerous unintended consequences for drivers and riders,” a spokeswoman said. “It’s critical that the TLC understands the damage these rules will continue to do to the community before enacting new policies.”

President Donald Trump is suing the House Ways and Means Committee and New York state officials to prevent his state tax returns from being turned over to the congressional committee.

The lawsuit, which was filed Tuesday in Washington, seeks an injection to block a new state law.

The law, which went into effect earlier this month, would allow the Democratic-controlled House and Ways Means Committee to obtain the returns.

This is the latest legal front on which Trump is battling House Democrats.

The committee sued the Treasury Department and IRS officials this month in an attempt to enforce a law that allows its chairman to obtain any taxpayer's returns.

The administration and the president's business have repeatedly tried to stall Democrats' investigations by filing lawsuits and by not cooperating.

Mayor Bill de Blasio insists it was Amazon—not —that sold New York City down the river.

Appearing on CNN Tuesday, the 

"I don't buy it," he said. "Amazon had a deal, and they walked away from it."

De Blasio did not say why he thinks Amazon walked away, but noted that the proposed office site was not in Ocasio-Cortez's district. However, she was one of the first officials to attack the deal, and

To the editor:

Re "New York's climate plan will drive big changes, if it works" (July 19):

Wonderful, except for one detail that New York politicos overlook: Both climate science and energy science say it cannot work.

The total carbon footprint and carbon lifecycle of these measures may slow but will never stop or reverse global warming. The recipe of this plan is just plain insufficient in carbon free energy to get the job done.

Massive growth in solar and wind will mostly give us huge mining growth for materials,  depletion of strategic metals, land grabs, short infrastructure replacement time, and complex incomplete costly recycling. Intermittent solar and wind requires the use of carbon energy and energy storage, which adds carbon and inefficiencies, as power sources are far away from where the demand is.

The only technology available to reach the goal of reversing global warming and ocean acidification is advanced nuclear Generation III and IV nuclear reactor designs.

Until we are more fearful of climate change then we are of nuclear energy, and postpone the inevitable recognition of nuclear as essential to mitigation, we live under threat.

Rod Coenen

Appleton, Wisc.

The writer is an architect and institutional planner.

The passage of the stringent and the condition of its buildings. If advocates of the law believe in evidence, not just anti-landlord ideology, they should want to know the answers to some inconvenient questions—answers which, in all likelihood, will make clear that this is a law that benefits the few at the expense of the many.

Here are some questions which the What is rent regulation’s effect on housing supply? Rent regulation is a sword that hangs over any new building, even those not touched by it at present. Will new construction continue, as measured by new building permits? 

How does rent regulation affect housing conditions? This question is especially relevant for lower-income neighborhoods, where many rents are regulated. Will small property owners continue to invest in maintenance and improvements? It’s important to track building permits in rent-regulated units and by community district to answer this question, lest New York see less gentrification and more “

How will the new law affect housing turnover? Advocates emphasize the importance of insuring that tenants don’t get forced out of their apartments. But there’s a related concern: Do rent-regulated tenants stay in units larger than they need, blocking young families from moving into or staying in the city? Housing turnover in New York is already low, by national standards. With the new law, turnover and “over-occupancy”—a measure of empty bedrooms in an apartment—should be regularly tracked. 

What happens upstate? The new law’s sharpest departure—next to its permanence—is its extension of the authority to adopt such regulation to all counties in New York state. Even if Buffalo, Utica, Rochester and Syracuse don’t act on that authority immediately, the potential will be there, and it may discourage real estate investment. In that context, it’s worth tracking how many building permits and certificates of occupancy are granted in cities across the state. If rents rise but new building or renovation doesn’t follow, it may be that the new law will have had a “signal effect,” dampening potential revival upstate.

Rent laws are typically motivated by concerns about the share of household income being paid in rent, or by rent increases in suddenly fashionable neighborhoods. But a host of other questions should be addressed, whether by state or city agencies. The new law is ostensibly “permanent”—not keyed to a specific percentage of vacant units, for instance—but that should not stand in the way of a deeper public understanding of its effects. Who knows? Even in Albany, minds—or at least who holds office—can change. 

Howard Husock, a City Journal Contributing Editor, is the author of the forthcoming book Who Killed Civil Society: The Rise of Big Government and Decline of Bourgeois Norms.

Cigna and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center have formed a value-based-care arrangement that will allow the cancer hospital to earn shared-savings payments if it meets certain cost and quality goals.

The agreement, which covers people with employer-sponsored plans, is part of Cigna Collaborative Care, a value-based model the insurer started in 2008 that now has about 250 participants. Cigna began working with oncology providers through the program in 2015.

With the program, patients get a registered nurse to coordinate their treatment with Cigna. These nurses have a single point of contact at Cigna to resolve benefits issues.

"Nurses are on the front lines of day-to-day cancer care, so coordinating patient care through a dedicated nurse offers opportunities to improve and streamline the high-quality, patient-centric care we already provide to our patients," Elizabeth Nelkin McCormick, senior vice president and chief nursing officer at MSK, said in a statement.

Cigna also provides care-management services to educate patients about treatment options, the cost of services and potential side effects. Members have 24/7 access to a clinician affiliated with the practice.

One of Cigna's goals is to prevent patients from taking an unnecessary trip to the hospital because of the side effects of their treatment. It also aims to have MSK engage the patient upon discharge if a patient is admitted to a different hospital.

"We let them know when those customers get hospitalized. They may get admitted somewhere else and the provider is not aware of that," said Dr. Bhuvana Sagar, Cigna's national medical executive. "They can outreach to the customer and ensure they get the right care. A lot of these are simple things. They can drive change."

Other local participants in Cigna Collaborative Care for oncology include NYUPN, a clinically integrated network that combines NYU Langone Health and University Physicians Network, and Regional Cancer Care Associates in New Jersey.

There are 25 provider organizations in New York and New Jersey participating in Cigna Collaborative Care for large physician groups.

Providers receive an upfront care-coordination fee for participating in the program. Each year their costs are measured against either a national benchmark or their own baseline. If they save Cigna a greater amount of money than the initial care-coordination fee, the provider can share in the savings. Participants also must meet certain goals based on the quality of care to receive a payment.

"It's an open-book test. We share information throughout the year. There are no surprises," said Dr. Ron Menzin, senior medical director for Cigna's New York and New Jersey market. "We hope these groups succeed and want them to succeed."

Providers aren't penalized if patients' costs are higher than expected.

"The goal is to improve quality," Sagar said. "Risk can be a bad four-letter word." —Jonathan LaMantia

State to insurers: Cover HIV-prevention drug without cost-sharing

Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Tuesday that the state Department of Financial Services instructed local insurers to cover the HIV-prevention drug PrEP without out-of-pocket costs for consumers.

Deductibles and copays have been a significant financial barrier for many when it comes to accessing pre-exposure prophylaxis, the governor's office said. Therefore, insurers should cover PrEP without cost-sharing, regardless of discounts that drug manufacturers offer.

"Coverage for PrEP for the prevention of HIV infection is vital to ending the AIDS epidemic in New York, and the department will continue to ensure full compliance with this important consumer health protection," Lisette Johnson, chief of the department's Health Bureau, wrote in the letter.

The department on Tuesday also proposed a regulation that would require clear standards for health insurer ID cards. The standards would help to ensure that all New Yorkers covered by state-regulated health plans, including members of the LGBTQ community, have important insurance information.

Additionally, the department said it plans to provide new information to transgender New Yorkers who have employer-provided health insurance or insurance purchased on the NY State of Health Marketplace or in the individual market to help them access coverage for gender-affirming care. That information will range from treatments insurers are required to cover to surprise-billing protections and instructions for filing complaints.

"These policies support our nation-leading campaign to end the AIDS epidemic in New York by the end of 2020," Cuomo said in a statement, "and ensure every New Yorker—regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity—gets the health care protections guaranteed to them under law." —Jennifer Henderson

Brooklyn startup offers insurance to protect freelancers

Trupo, a Brooklyn-based insurance technology company, said it is now offering accident, dental, specified-disease and cancer insurance to New York freelancers.

The plans are underwritten by Paul Revere Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co., with Trupo providing the technology that allows freelancers to tailor coverage to their needs. Trupo plans to expand to all 50 states in the next two years; the products were introduced in New York earlier this month.

The accident and specified-disease plans are not health insurance. They provide protection to freelancers if they are injured or become sick and can't work and can be used to cover out-of-pocket medical costs or general expenses, such as rent and groceries.

"Because freelancers aren't eligible for unemployment insurance, these are things that get people into credit-card debt," said Sara Horowitz, Trupo's founder and CEO, who previously led Freelancers Union. "When you talk to freelancers, they talk about this as an anxiety."

The dental coverage, Horowitz said, is more comprehensive than independent workers can typically get without the assistance of an employer.

Trupo is backed by $6.5 million in investment from Freelancers Union and the investment firms Radicle Impact, Sequoia Capital and Ripplewood.

Horowitz has a history of working to provide benefits for freelancers. She founded Freelancers Union to support independent workers in 2003, and created the Freelancers Insurance Co. in 2008, before it shut down in 2014.

Horowitz's Freelancers Union received $517 million from the federal government to sponsor and launch co-op insurance plans for the ACA marketplaces. The three plans created by the Freelancers Union, including Health Republic Insurance of New York, have since shut down.

Horowitz told Crain's in 2016 that she attributed the insurer's failure to its management's decision to set premiums too low and to Congress's withholding of more than $12 billion in payments that were supposed to offset insurers' losses nationwide. —J.L.

Public Health Solutions to tackle maternal death rate

Women's health nonprofits Public Health Solutions and Saving Mothers have partnered to launch a New York City-based pregnancy health literacy program. The program is designed to educate and empower underserved pregnant and postpartum women at a time when New York has one of the highest maternal death rates in the nation and racial disparities persist.

The Saving Mothers mPowher program will create a training curriculum for community health workers who visit women in their homes. The curriculum will focus on cultural sensitivity as well as identifying high-risk complications and comorbidities for pregnant women. Currently there is no standardized national curriculum of its kind.

The program also will develop and distribute educational maternal health kits.

Initial investment in the program includes $42,000 from Public Health Solutions and $35,000 from Saving Mothers.

The program will be piloted at Public Health Solutions in Queens, where a handful of community health workers in Jamaica will be trained to work with some 300 pregnant women each year. The plan is to expand the program to all five boroughs, followed by the rest of the state.

In New York City, black women are approximately eight times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related complication than white women. Some of the leading causes of maternal death in the city are pulmonary embolism, hypertension and preeclampsia.

"It's unacceptable that women of color face such stark differences in pregnancy outcomes. No woman's life should be at risk when they deliver their baby," said Lisa David, president and CEO of Public Health Solutions, in a statement. "Through the mPowher program, our community health workers will be better equipped to empower women to advocate for themselves and their families." —J.H.

AT A GLANCE

9/11 VICTIMS FUND: The U.S. Senate voted Tuesday to reauthorize the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund for the next 73 years, CBS News reported. The fund helps pay the health care bills of thousands of first responders and survivors. President Donald Trump is expected to sign the bill Friday.

DRUG PRICES: The U.S. Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday released a plan to save more than $100 billion on drug prices over 10 years, Modern Healthcare reported. Most of the savings come from an overhaul of Medicare Part D, including a controversial cap on list prices. 

COVERAGE EXPANSION: A universal-coverage policy proposal from the left-leaning Center for American Progress, known as Medicare Extra, would insure 35 million uninsured individuals while increasing federal spending by $2.8 trillion over a 10-year period, according to an analysis by the consulting firm Avalere Health. Under the program, which would allow people to enroll in coverage with income-based premiums and cost sharing, national health spending would decrease by 4%, or $300 billion, in 2031. 

CANNABIS AND BANKING: The U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs convened Tuesday for a hearing on challenges for cannabis and banking. "Common sense, bi-partisan legislation is an important step in the right direction and should help pave the way for cannabis businesses to gain full access to financial services, including the ability to allow customers to pay with credit cards, provide employees with top-tier retirement plans, and afford shareholders the benefits of owning public equity listed on a major U.S. stock exchange, such as the NASDAQ or NYSE," said Dr. Kyle Kingsley, CEO of medical marijuana company Vireo Health, in a statement.

To the editor:

Re "Cuomo's choice: Enable transit turnaround or undermine it" (editorial, July 22):

The MTA’s reorganization plan, like all its previous special commissions and advisory committee reports, is not worth the paper it was printed on. The promised savings by consolidating NYC Transit, Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North departments has been discussed and promised for decades.

It makes no sense for the MTA to reassign management of all major projects to the Office of Capital Construction. All three agencies already have their experienced engineers, their operations planning, their procurement, their quality assurance and control employees.

Stop wasting millions on feasibility studies for future system expansion projects that will never happen. Do not initiate any of these new projects until each operating agency has reached a state of good repair for existing fleet, stations, signals, interlockings, track, power, yards and shops. Ensure that current maintenance programs are fully funded and completed on time so that riders have reliable service.

In the end, Gov. Andrew Cuomo and elected officials who depend upon transportation-union endorsements and campaign contributions and volunteers will not stand up against these benefactors and openly support MTA management in instituting these reforms during contract negotiations. And riders do not have the stomach to put up with potential work slow-downs, service disruptions, employee sick-outs and possible strikes by unions who are not going to give up what they have.

Larry Penner

Great Neck, N.Y.

The writer worked for 31 years for the Federal Transit Administration in New York.  

Last month’s City Council members to propose a ban on helicopter flights over New York City.

Legislation introduced Tuesday by Manhattan Democrats Mark Levine, Helen Rosenthal and Margaret S. Chin would ban all non-essential helicopter travel over the entirety of the five boroughs.

“These flights are run solely for the benefit of the private operators and the few passengers with the means to afford the expensive ticket,” said Levine in a statement. “They are loud, they pollute our air, and have no value to the public.”

The move comes on the heels of companies like The city technically does not have authority to ban helicopter flights, and would have to rely on the Federal Aviation Authority to disallow essential flights. However, the mayor can deny private operators' use of helipads in the city.

Last month, nine members of Congress, including Reps. Jerrold Nadler and Carolyn Maloney, wrote a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration and Mayor Bill de Blasio calling for the temporary grounding of helicopter flights until new safety rules could be implemented.

The fatal June crash on the roof of a Midtown Manhattan skyscraper killed the pilot and left a number of city officials wondering why a helicopter was flying in terrible conditions. It later emerged that the pilot was trying to take advantage of a break in the weather that didn't materialize as he expected.

“Helicopters pose a serious risk to New Yorkers, one that we have recently been reminded of with the helicopter crash in Midtown in June that left one dead,” said Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer in a statement. But nearly all the complaints that Manhattan politicians receive about helicopters are about noise levels.

The U.S. Justice Department sent the strongest signal yet that it’s prepared to take on technology giants like Facebook and Google, announcing a broad antitrust review into whether the companies are using their power to thwart competition.

The department’s antitrust division disclosed plans Tuesday to scrutinize tech platforms following mounting criticism across Washington that the companies have become too big and too powerful. The department didn’t specify which firms it would look at but strongly suggested Facebook, Google and Amazon are in the cross-hairs.

“The history of these DOJ investigations is that they kill the company that they investigate” as the firm turns its focus to defending itself, said Mark Grady, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles. “It’s a giant distraction.”

The announcement marks latest sign of the escalating pressure coming down on tech giants, from Capitol Hill to President Donald Trump, who accuses the companies of silencing conservative views. The giants of the industry are under fire over massive collection of user data, failing to police content on their platforms, and claims that they are harming competition and reducing choices for consumers.

The spotlight on the industry will carry into Wednesday when a record $5 billion privacy fine against Facebook is set to be announced by the Federal Trade Commission for a series of privacy violations.

The Justice Department review, led by antitrust chief Makan Delrahim, represents a new level of scrutiny of the industry after news in May that the U.S. antitrust agencies carved up oversight of four tech giants, with the department taking Google and Apple Inc., and the FTC claiming Facebook and Amazon.

Companies are now potentially exposed to investigations by both agencies, because their accord calls for separating the scrutiny by business practices, according to two people familiar with the matter. The Justice Department in its statement suggested that possibility because it signaled that it would look at Amazon and Facebook, even though the FTC will be examining those companies under the agreement.

Attorney General William Barr encouraged the review of the industry, according to one of the people. He met earlier this year with European Union competition chief Margrethe Vestager, who has slapped Google with record fines over antitrust violations, the person said.

The department’s scrutiny comes after repeated attacks on the industry’s biggest names by Trump, who is more outspoken on antitrust than any president in possibly a century, said New York University law professor Harry First.

The president repeatedly accuses tech platforms of bias against conservative views, which the companies deny, while directing ire toward Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, threatening his company with antitrust enforcement and higher shipping fees.

The antitrust division is already taking steps in its inquiry, hearing out third parties who have complaints about competitive harm, according to the people. Its review will look at concerns raised by consumers, businesses and entrepreneurs about search, social media, and online retail, according to the statement.

Amazon, Google, Apple and Facebook declined to comment on the Justice Department’s announcement.

Tech giants are separately contending with a broad investigation by the House antitrust panel led by David Cicilline, a Rhode Island Democrat. Cicilline on Tuesday accused Facebook, Google and Amazon of “evasive, incomplete, or misleading answers” when their executives testified before his committee last week.

“We should all welcome greater scrutiny of dominant online platforms,” he said after the Justice Department’s announcement. “Unfortunately, I don’t have a lot of confidence that Donald Trump’s Justice Department will put the interests of working people ahead of billionaires for a change.”

Still, the move was cheered by others.

“American consumers and news publishers desperately need high tech markets to be more competitive,” said Dina Srinivasan, a former digital advertising executive who wrote a paper titled “The Antitrust Case Against Facebook.”

“Increased competition will help to solve the systemic privacy problems that consumers face with companies like Google and Facebook,” she said.

While the Justice Department pursues its own review, FTC Chairman Joseph Simons earlier this year formed a task force to investigate conduct in the industry and review past acquisitions to determine whether mergers harmed competition.

The efforts put pressure on antitrust enforcers to bring cases against tech companies, said William Kovacic, a former FTC commissioner who is now a professor at George Washington University Law School.

“All of this creates momentum. You can only go so far in saying we’re doing investigations, we’re going to do this broad study before you have committed yourself to say we’re going to take enforcement action,” he said. “Can you imagine standing in front of a press conference and saying, never mind, we didn’t find anything?”

The U.S. Justice Department sent the strongest signal yet that it’s prepared to take on technology giants like Facebook and Google, announcing a broad antitrust review into whether the companies are using their power to thwart competition.

The department’s antitrust division disclosed plans Tuesday to scrutinize tech platforms following mounting criticism across Washington that the companies have become too big and too powerful. The department didn’t specify which firms it would look at but strongly suggested Facebook, Google and Amazon are in the cross-hairs.

“The history of these DOJ investigations is that they kill the company that they investigate” as the firm turns its focus to defending itself, said Mark Grady, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles. “It’s a giant distraction.”

The announcement marks latest sign of the escalating pressure coming down on tech giants, from Capitol Hill to President Donald Trump, who accuses the companies of silencing conservative views. The giants of the industry are under fire over massive collection of user data, failing to police content on their platforms, and claims that they are harming competition and reducing choices for consumers.

The spotlight on the industry will carry into Wednesday when a record $5 billion privacy fine against Facebook is set to be announced by the Federal Trade Commission for a series of privacy violations.

The Justice Department review, led by antitrust chief Makan Delrahim, represents a new level of scrutiny of the industry after news in May that the U.S. antitrust agencies carved up oversight of four tech giants, with the department taking Google and Apple Inc., and the FTC claiming Facebook and Amazon.

Companies are now potentially exposed to investigations by both agencies, because their accord calls for separating the scrutiny by business practices, according to two people familiar with the matter. The Justice Department in its statement suggested that possibility because it signaled that it would look at Amazon and Facebook, even though the FTC will be examining those companies under the agreement.

Attorney General William Barr encouraged the review of the industry, according to one of the people. He met earlier this year with European Union competition chief Margrethe Vestager, who has slapped Google with record fines over antitrust violations, the person said.

The department’s scrutiny comes after repeated attacks on the industry’s biggest names by Trump, who is more outspoken on antitrust than any president in possibly a century, said New York University law professor Harry First.

The president repeatedly accuses tech platforms of bias against conservative views, which the companies deny, while directing ire toward Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, threatening his company with antitrust enforcement and higher shipping fees.

The antitrust division is already taking steps in its inquiry, hearing out third parties who have complaints about competitive harm, according to the people. Its review will look at concerns raised by consumers, businesses and entrepreneurs about search, social media, and online retail, according to the statement.

Amazon, Google, Apple and Facebook declined to comment on the Justice Department’s announcement.

Tech giants are separately contending with a broad investigation by the House antitrust panel led by David Cicilline, a Rhode Island Democrat. Cicilline on Tuesday accused Facebook, Google and Amazon of “evasive, incomplete, or misleading answers” when their executives testified before his committee last week.

“We should all welcome greater scrutiny of dominant online platforms,” he said after the Justice Department’s announcement. “Unfortunately, I don’t have a lot of confidence that Donald Trump’s Justice Department will put the interests of working people ahead of billionaires for a change.”

Still, the move was cheered by others.

“American consumers and news publishers desperately need high tech markets to be more competitive,” said Dina Srinivasan, a former digital advertising executive who wrote a paper titled “The Antitrust Case Against Facebook.”

“Increased competition will help to solve the systemic privacy problems that consumers face with companies like Google and Facebook,” she said.

While the Justice Department pursues its own review, FTC Chairman Joseph Simons earlier this year formed a task force to investigate conduct in the industry and review past acquisitions to determine whether mergers harmed competition.

The efforts put pressure on antitrust enforcers to bring cases against tech companies, said William Kovacic, a former FTC commissioner who is now a professor at George Washington University Law School.

“All of this creates momentum. You can only go so far in saying we’re doing investigations, we’re going to do this broad study before you have committed yourself to say we’re going to take enforcement action,” he said. “Can you imagine standing in front of a press conference and saying, never mind, we didn’t find anything?”

The U.S. Justice Department sent the strongest signal yet that it’s prepared to take on technology giants like Facebook and Google, announcing a broad antitrust review into whether the companies are using their power to thwart competition.

The department’s antitrust division disclosed plans Tuesday to scrutinize tech platforms following mounting criticism across Washington that the companies have become too big and too powerful. The department didn’t specify which firms it would look at but strongly suggested Facebook, Google and Amazon are in the cross-hairs.

“The history of these DOJ investigations is that they kill the company that they investigate” as the firm turns its focus to defending itself, said Mark Grady, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles. “It’s a giant distraction.”

The announcement marks latest sign of the escalating pressure coming down on tech giants, from Capitol Hill to President Donald Trump, who accuses the companies of silencing conservative views. The giants of the industry are under fire over massive collection of user data, failing to police content on their platforms, and claims that they are harming competition and reducing choices for consumers.

The spotlight on the industry will carry into Wednesday when a record $5 billion privacy fine against Facebook is set to be announced by the Federal Trade Commission for a series of privacy violations.

The Justice Department review, led by antitrust chief Makan Delrahim, represents a new level of scrutiny of the industry after news in May that the U.S. antitrust agencies carved up oversight of four tech giants, with the department taking Google and Apple Inc., and the FTC claiming Facebook and Amazon.

Companies are now potentially exposed to investigations by both agencies, because their accord calls for separating the scrutiny by business practices, according to two people familiar with the matter. The Justice Department in its statement suggested that possibility because it signaled that it would look at Amazon and Facebook, even though the FTC will be examining those companies under the agreement.

Attorney General William Barr encouraged the review of the industry, according to one of the people. He met earlier this year with European Union competition chief Margrethe Vestager, who has slapped Google with record fines over antitrust violations, the person said.

The department’s scrutiny comes after repeated attacks on the industry’s biggest names by Trump, who is more outspoken on antitrust than any president in possibly a century, said New York University law professor Harry First.

The president repeatedly accuses tech platforms of bias against conservative views, which the companies deny, while directing ire toward Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, threatening his company with antitrust enforcement and higher shipping fees.

The antitrust division is already taking steps in its inquiry, hearing out third parties who have complaints about competitive harm, according to the people. Its review will look at concerns raised by consumers, businesses and entrepreneurs about search, social media, and online retail, according to the statement.

Amazon, Google, Apple and Facebook declined to comment on the Justice Department’s announcement.

Tech giants are separately contending with a broad investigation by the House antitrust panel led by David Cicilline, a Rhode Island Democrat. Cicilline on Tuesday accused Facebook, Google and Amazon of “evasive, incomplete, or misleading answers” when their executives testified before his committee last week.

“We should all welcome greater scrutiny of dominant online platforms,” he said after the Justice Department’s announcement. “Unfortunately, I don’t have a lot of confidence that Donald Trump’s Justice Department will put the interests of working people ahead of billionaires for a change.”

Still, the move was cheered by others.

“American consumers and news publishers desperately need high tech markets to be more competitive,” said Dina Srinivasan, a former digital advertising executive who wrote a paper titled “The Antitrust Case Against Facebook.”

“Increased competition will help to solve the systemic privacy problems that consumers face with companies like Google and Facebook,” she said.

While the Justice Department pursues its own review, FTC Chairman Joseph Simons earlier this year formed a task force to investigate conduct in the industry and review past acquisitions to determine whether mergers harmed competition.

The efforts put pressure on antitrust enforcers to bring cases against tech companies, said William Kovacic, a former FTC commissioner who is now a professor at George Washington University Law School.

“All of this creates momentum. You can only go so far in saying we’re doing investigations, we’re going to do this broad study before you have committed yourself to say we’re going to take enforcement action,” he said. “Can you imagine standing in front of a press conference and saying, never mind, we didn’t find anything?”

The U.S. Justice Department sent the strongest signal yet that it’s prepared to take on technology giants like Facebook and Google, announcing a broad antitrust review into whether the companies are using their power to thwart competition.

The department’s antitrust division disclosed plans Tuesday to scrutinize tech platforms following mounting criticism across Washington that the companies have become too big and too powerful. The department didn’t specify which firms it would look at but strongly suggested Facebook, Google and Amazon are in the cross-hairs.

“The history of these DOJ investigations is that they kill the company that they investigate” as the firm turns its focus to defending itself, said Mark Grady, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles. “It’s a giant distraction.”

The announcement marks latest sign of the escalating pressure coming down on tech giants, from Capitol Hill to President Donald Trump, who accuses the companies of silencing conservative views. The giants of the industry are under fire over massive collection of user data, failing to police content on their platforms, and claims that they are harming competition and reducing choices for consumers.

The spotlight on the industry will carry into Wednesday when a record $5 billion privacy fine against Facebook is set to be announced by the Federal Trade Commission for a series of privacy violations.

The Justice Department review, led by antitrust chief Makan Delrahim, represents a new level of scrutiny of the industry after news in May that the U.S. antitrust agencies carved up oversight of four tech giants, with the department taking Google and Apple Inc., and the FTC claiming Facebook and Amazon.

Companies are now potentially exposed to investigations by both agencies, because their accord calls for separating the scrutiny by business practices, according to two people familiar with the matter. The Justice Department in its statement suggested that possibility because it signaled that it would look at Amazon and Facebook, even though the FTC will be examining those companies under the agreement.

Attorney General William Barr encouraged the review of the industry, according to one of the people. He met earlier this year with European Union competition chief Margrethe Vestager, who has slapped Google with record fines over antitrust violations, the person said.

The department’s scrutiny comes after repeated attacks on the industry’s biggest names by Trump, who is more outspoken on antitrust than any president in possibly a century, said New York University law professor Harry First.

The president repeatedly accuses tech platforms of bias against conservative views, which the companies deny, while directing ire toward Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, threatening his company with antitrust enforcement and higher shipping fees.

The antitrust division is already taking steps in its inquiry, hearing out third parties who have complaints about competitive harm, according to the people. Its review will look at concerns raised by consumers, businesses and entrepreneurs about search, social media, and online retail, according to the statement.

Amazon, Google, Apple and Facebook declined to comment on the Justice Department’s announcement.

Tech giants are separately contending with a broad investigation by the House antitrust panel led by David Cicilline, a Rhode Island Democrat. Cicilline on Tuesday accused Facebook, Google and Amazon of “evasive, incomplete, or misleading answers” when their executives testified before his committee last week.

“We should all welcome greater scrutiny of dominant online platforms,” he said after the Justice Department’s announcement. “Unfortunately, I don’t have a lot of confidence that Donald Trump’s Justice Department will put the interests of working people ahead of billionaires for a change.”

Still, the move was cheered by others.

“American consumers and news publishers desperately need high tech markets to be more competitive,” said Dina Srinivasan, a former digital advertising executive who wrote a paper titled “The Antitrust Case Against Facebook.”

“Increased competition will help to solve the systemic privacy problems that consumers face with companies like Google and Facebook,” she said.

While the Justice Department pursues its own review, FTC Chairman Joseph Simons earlier this year formed a task force to investigate conduct in the industry and review past acquisitions to determine whether mergers harmed competition.

The efforts put pressure on antitrust enforcers to bring cases against tech companies, said William Kovacic, a former FTC commissioner who is now a professor at George Washington University Law School.

“All of this creates momentum. You can only go so far in saying we’re doing investigations, we’re going to do this broad study before you have committed yourself to say we’re going to take enforcement action,” he said. “Can you imagine standing in front of a press conference and saying, never mind, we didn’t find anything?”

WeWork&am… looking to go public in September, people familiar with the company’s plans said, in what’s expected to be the second-biggest submitt… its paperwork confidentially to U.S. regulators in December. WeWork plans to to discuss its business with analysts on July 31, the person said.

WeWork declined to comment on the plans. The intended timing of the IPO was reported earlier by The Wall Street Journal.

SoftBank Group Corp. is WeWork’s largest backer and has valued the unprofitable business at $47 billion.

WeWork has been in talks to secure a credit facility, originally $2.75 billion—a figure that was expanded to as much as $4 billion, people with knowledge of the discussions said this month. The company is now in talks to increase that amount to as much as $6 billion in what would be an asset-backed and highly structured financing, one of the people said.

Uber Technologies Inc.’s $8.1 billion IPO in May ranks as the biggest of 2019. A WeWork offering of $3.5 billion would put it ahead of diagnostic equipment maker Avantor Inc.’s $2.9 billion listing in May, currently the second-biggest for the year globally.

WeWork&am… looking to go public in September, people familiar with the company’s plans said, in what’s expected to be the second-biggest submitt… its paperwork confidentially to U.S. regulators in December. WeWork plans to to discuss its business with analysts on July 31, the person said.

WeWork declined to comment on the plans. The intended timing of the IPO was reported earlier by The Wall Street Journal.

SoftBank Group Corp. is WeWork’s largest backer and has valued the unprofitable business at $47 billion.

WeWork has been in talks to secure a credit facility, originally $2.75 billion—a figure that was expanded to as much as $4 billion, people with knowledge of the discussions said this month. The company is now in talks to increase that amount to as much as $6 billion in what would be an asset-backed and highly structured financing, one of the people said.

Uber Technologies Inc.’s $8.1 billion IPO in May ranks as the biggest of 2019. A WeWork offering of $3.5 billion would put it ahead of diagnostic equipment maker Avantor Inc.’s $2.9 billion listing in May, currently the second-biggest for the year globally.

Open…; is getting into the

When OpenTable's updated site launches this week, it will give diners a delivery option for 8,000 restaurants in 90 U.S. cities. If they select delivery, users will be directed to the restaurant's preferred service to complete the transaction. If a restaurant works with more than one delivery company, each option will be shown. Eventually, OpenTable wants to post estimated delivery times and costs for each service as well.

Hafner said OpenTable decided to add a delivery option about nine months ago but didn't want to operate its own fleet in what's already become a booming sector. According to Technomic, the top five food delivery companies in the U.S. had $13.5 billion in sales between May 2018 and May 2019.

But the delivery market is crowded, and companies have been aggressively discounting and offering bonuses for drivers. GrubHub's first quarter profit tumbled 78%.

Partnering was the easiest and fastest way to get into the business, Hafner said. OpenTable — which says it seats 123 million diners each month—offered delivery companies access to a huge customer base.

"All these companies are in a chase for growth and they want to be where the consumers are," Hafner said.

Hafner said the delivery function will make it easier for diners, who may use multiple delivery apps but don't always know which companies work with which restaurants.

OpenTable chose its three partners because they have the biggest reach, Hafner said. Eventually, the service will expand to more of the 51,000 restaurants OpenTable works with. OpenTable is active in 20 countries, including Australia and Japan.

GrubHub says the partnership is another way for diners to discover delivery. It also gives them an option to try a restaurant's food even if a reservation isn't available, the company said.

GrubHub said it's not concerned about OpenTable potentially posting its fees alongside competitors.

"We support any efforts to help consumers save money on delivery," the company said in a statement.

Dan Simons, who runs seven restaurants as the co-owner and founder of Maryland-based Farmers Restaurant Group, said delivery was irrelevant six years ago. Now, it's the fastest growing part of his business, accounting for between 4-10% of his sales.

Simons said more than half his reservations already come through OpenTable. The new system will help him advertise his delivery option. Simons already works with Caviar and GrubHub as well as DoorDash.

Simons says he hears a lot of full-service restaurants complain that delivery is taking away customers who would otherwise eat in the restaurant. He thinks it's actually bringing in more business, because customers who want to stay home and watch TV while they eat weren't going to dine out anyway.

"I want them dining on my food whenever they want it," Simons said.

OpenTable currently charges restaurants $249 per month for its service, plus $1 per seated diner who booked through OpenTable or 25 cents per diner who booked on the restaurant's website using OpenTable software. Restaurants won't pay any additional fee for the delivery option, Hafner said. Instead, OpenTable will charge a "modest fee" to delivery companies.

The executive board of the , who had led 32BJ since 2012. Figueroa died July 11 at age 57 from a reported heart attack, prompting an outpouring of grief and sympathy from New York city and state leaders.

Bragg is one of 85,000 New Yorkers in the union, which is the largest property-services union in the country with 175,000 members across 12 states. He has been a member for more than 30 years, according to the announcement, and most recently was secretary-treasurer under Figueroa.

In a statement, Bragg pledged to “build on our union’s commitment to our principles and on our people power, both by continuing our core work to maintain strong contracts and to improve our standards, and by pushing forward in 32BJ’s mission to improve conditions for our members by making the world we share a better place.”

As secretary-treasurer, Bragg grew 32BJ’s Residential Division to 35,000 members in the city, Westchester County, Long Island and New Jersey, according to the union. His leadership included what the union called a major victory: a 2014 residential contract that won members raises of more than 11% over four years.

Union members, elected officials and community activists will gather at 1 p.m. today at Riverside Church for a memorial service for Figueroa.

.

The agency noted a 3% drop in gross sales at the food hall for 2018 in its July report to the MTA board, as first flagged by repo… Tuesday from state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli found that the MTA’s homeless outreach program was falling short. Contractors hired by the MTA to do homeless counts, outreach and placement in Grand Central and Penn Station did only a fraction of the work required, according to the audit.

“During lunch hours 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. there was limited or no outreach efforts and much of the seating in Grand Central’s dining concourse intended for customers was taken up by homeless clients,” the audit said. 

The MTA said it has since increased oversight of the program. The contractor, Bowery Residents’ Committee, pushed back against the findings in a statement Tuesday, saying in a statement to the Journal “we do not believe the auditors fully understand how effective outreach works.” 

On Wednesday, the MTA announced it was launching a task force dedicated to combating the growing number of homeless people in the city’s subways.