Connect with us

Published

on

A Target shareholder whose shares lost over $20,000 after the retailer’s disastrous Pride Month collection that featured tuck-friendly swimwear and LGBTQ-friendly gear for infants and children is suing the store for allegedly misleading investors.

The lawsuit was filed by anti-radical left group America First Legal on behalf of investor, Brian Craig, who spent around $50,000 for 216.450 shares of Target in April 2022.

By April 2023, the value of Craig’s holdings fell to $34,839, and then dropped to $28,896 by June 14 — in the middle of Pride Month, as Target was in the middle of a boycott triggered by a collection that included childrens book titled Twas the Night Before Pride, and a handful of T-shirts donning LGBTQ-friendly slogans, like live laugh lesbian.

Target’s “board of directors betrayed both Target’s core customer base of working families and its investors by making false and misleading statements concerning Target’s environmental, social and governance (ESG) and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) mandates that led to its disastrous 2023 children-and-family themed LGBT Pride campaign.”

These “false and misleading statements,” the court documents argued, led “shareholders to unknowingly support Targets board and management in their misuse of investor funds to serve its divisive political and social goals — and ultimately lose billions.”

Even after Target was getting fierce backlash from its conservative consumers over its Pride-themed merchandise, it “continued the LGBT-Pride campaign and continues to sell products associated with the campaign, causing further damage to Target’s stock price,” the suit alleges.

As of Monday morning, Target’s website still touted Pride apparel for sale.

American First Legal vice president and general counsel Gene Hamilton said in a press release: “Federal law requires publicly-traded corporations to provide certain information to shareholders in their proxy statements that allow those shareholders to make informed decisions. As alleged in our complaint, Target failed to execute its duty to its shareholders.”

As a result, Craig is requesting that Target admit to violating rules in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which governs transactions in the secondary market, and award financial damages.

Should Craig win the case, the sum he receives would be determined at a later trial.

Representatives for Craig at American First Legal did not immediately respond to The Post’s request for comment.

The Post has also sought comment from Target.

Following Target’s release of its rainbow-clad collection, “PRIDE,” in May, Targets stock lost nearly $14 billion as the controversy grabbed headlines.

The court documents, which were filed in Florida federal court earlier this month, claim that the steep drop in market value is a direct and predictable result of managements calculated decisions to promote sexualized material to children.”

About $10 billion of market cap was lost between May 18 and 28, the filing said, referencing a New York Post article — the cheap-chic retailer’s “longest losing streak in 23 years.”

“The stock value remains depressed,” the suit added, noting that Craig still owns 216 shares of Target.

As of Monday morning, the Minneapolis-based retailer’s share price fell nearly 0.4%, to $130.72.

Over the past three months, Target’s stock has slipped about 14%, though shareholders have been losing money from their investments in the retailer long before it released the Pride collection.

However, after Target reported that its quarterly sales for the first time in six years for the three-month period ended July 29, it was attributed customers negative reaction to its spring Pride clothing.

Sales at stores and digital channels open for at least a year were off 5.4% from a year earlier, according to Targets Q2 earnings report released last week, while digital sales slipped 10.5%.

Targets CFO Michael Fiddelke addressed Targets disastrous rainbow-clad collection in an earnings call on Wednesday, saying: Traffic and top line trends were affected by the reaction to our Pride assortment.

Fiddelke said on the call that the retailer couldnt quantify the impact the Pride collection alone had on comparable sales.

Continue Reading

Business

Rachel Reeves hit by Labour rural rebellion over inheritance tax on farmers

Published

on

By

Rachel Reeves hit by Labour rural rebellion over inheritance tax on farmers

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has suffered another budget blow with a rebellion by rural Labour MPs over inheritance tax on farmers.

Speaking during the final day of the Commons debate on the budget, Labour backbenchers demanded a U-turn on the controversial proposals.

Plans to introduce a 20% tax on farm estates worth more than £1m from April have drawn protesters to London in their tens of thousands, with many fearing huge tax bills that would force small farms to sell up for good.

Farmers have staged numerous protests against the tax in Westminster. Pic: PA
Image:
Farmers have staged numerous protests against the tax in Westminster. Pic: PA

MPs voted on the so-called “family farms tax” just after 8pm on Tuesday, with dozens of Labour MPs appearing to have abstained, and one backbencher – borders MP Markus Campbell-Savours – voting against, alongside Conservative members.

In the vote, the fifth out of seven at the end of the budget debate, Labour’s vote slumped from 371 in the first vote on tax changes, down by 44 votes to 327.

‘Time to stand up for farmers’

The mini-mutiny followed a plea to Labour MPs from the National Farmers Union to abstain.

“To Labour MPs: We ask you to abstain on Budget Resolution 50,” the NFU urged.

“With your help, we can show the government there is still time to get it right on the family farm tax. A policy with such cruel human costs demands change. Now is the time to stand up for the farmers you represent.”

After the vote, NFU president Tom Bradshaw said: “The MPs who have shown their support are the rural representatives of the Labour Party. They represent the working people of the countryside and have spoken up on behalf of their constituents.

“It is vital that the chancellor and prime minister listen to the clear message they have delivered this evening. The next step in the fight against the family farm tax is removing the impact of this unjust and unfair policy on the most vulnerable members of our community.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Farmers defy police ban in budget day protest in Westminster.

The government comfortably won the vote by 327-182, a majority of 145. But the mini-mutiny served notice to the chancellor and Sir Keir Starmer that newly elected Labour MPs from the shires are prepared to rebel.

Speaking in the debate earlier, Mr Campbell-Savours said: “There remain deep concerns about the proposed changes to agricultural property relief (APR).

“Changes which leave many, not least elderly farmers, yet to make arrangements to transfer assets, devastated at the impact on their family farms.”

Samantha Niblett, Labour MP for South Derbyshire abstained after telling MPs: “I do plead with the government to look again at APR inheritance tax.

“Most farmers are not wealthy land barons, they live hand to mouth on tiny, sometimes non-existent profit margins. Many were explicitly advised not to hand over their farm to children, (but) now face enormous, unexpected tax bills.

“We must acknowledge a difficult truth: we have lost the trust of our farmers, and they deserve our utmost respect, our honesty and our unwavering support.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

UK ‘criminally’ unprepared to feed itself in crisis, says farmers’ union.

Labour MPs from rural constituencies who did not vote included Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower), Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury), Torquil Crichton (Western Isles), Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire), Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley), and Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall), Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk), Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby), Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk), Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth), Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay), Perran Moon, (Camborne and Redruth), Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire), Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal), Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire), John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) and Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr).

Continue Reading

Politics

UK takes ‘massive step forward,’ passing property laws for crypto

Published

on

By

UK takes ‘massive step forward,’ passing property laws for crypto

The UK has passed a bill into law that treats digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies and stablecoins, as property, which advocates say will better protect crypto users.

Lord Speaker John McFall announced in the House of Lords on Tuesday that the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill was given royal assent, meaning King Charles agreed to make the bill into an Act of Parliament and passed it into law.

Freddie New, policy chief at advocacy group Bitcoin Policy UK, said on X that the bill “becoming law is a massive step forward for Bitcoin in the United Kingdom and for everyone who holds and uses it here.”

Source: Freddie New

Common law in the UK, based on judges’ decisions, has established that digital assets are property, but the bill sought to codify a recommendation made by the Law Commission of England and Wales in 2024 that crypto be categorized as a new form of personal property for clarity.

“UK courts have already treated digital assets as property, but that was all through case-by-case judgments,” said the advocacy group CryptoUK. “Parliament has now written this principle into law.”

“This gives digital assets a much clearer legal footing — especially for things like proving ownership, recovering stolen assets, and handling them in insolvency or estate cases,” it added.

Digital “things” now considered personal property

CryptoUK said that the bill confirms “that digital or electronic ‘things’ can be objects of personal property rights.”

UK law categorizes personal property in two ways: a “thing in possession,” which is tangible property such as a car, and and a “thing in action,” intangible property, like the right to enforce a contract.

The bill clarifies that “a thing that is digital or electronic in nature” isn’t outside the realm of personal property rights just because it is neither a “thing in possession” nor a “thing in action.”

The Law Commission argued in its report in 2024 that digital assets can possess both qualities, and said that their unclear fit into property rights laws could hamstring dispute resolutions in court.

Related: Group of EU banks pushes for a euro-pegged stablecoin by 2027

Change gives “greater clarity” to crypto users

CryptoUK said on X that the law gives “greater clarity and protection for consumers and investors” and gives crypto holders “the same confidence and certainty they expect with other forms of property.”

“Digital assets can be clearly owned, recovered in cases of theft or fraud, and included within insolvency and estate processes,” it added.