Difference between revisions of "Talk:AT&T"

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Mobile v. Concepcion)
Line 12: Line 12:
 
In 2011, Vincent and Liza Concepcion of California brought a class-action lawsuit against AT&T because they "objected to a $30 charge for what was said to be a free cellphone."<ref>Adam Liptak, [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/business/28bizcourt.html Supreme Court Allows Contracts That Prohibit Class-Action Arbitration], New York Times, April 27, 2011.</ref> Although the couple had signed a "take it or leave it" agreement that "required them to resolve disputes through arbitration and barred them from banding together with others to seek class-action treatment", lower federal courts did not enforce the agreement and the case moved forward, reaching the Supreme Court in April of 2011.<ref>Adam Liptak, [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/business/28bizcourt.html Supreme Court Allows Contracts That Prohibit Class-Action Arbitration], New York Times, April 27, 2011.</ref> In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the rulings made by lower courts, determining that that the arbitration agreement signed by the Concepcions was legal according to the Federal Arbitration Act.<ref>SCOTUS Blog, [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/att-mobility-v-concepcion/ AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion], accessed July 23, 2014.</ref> The decision, issued by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] stated, "California state contract law, which deems class-action waivers in arbitration agreements unenforceable when certain criteria are met, is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act because it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress."<ref>SCOTUS Blog, [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/att-mobility-v-concepcion/ AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion], accessed July 23, 2014.</ref> A dissenting opinion filed by Justice [[Stephen Breyer]] and joined by Justices [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]], Sonia Sotomayor, and [[Elena Kagan]] stated, "This rule of state law is consistent with the [Federal Arbitration] Act’s language and primary objective. It does not 'stan[d] as an obstacle' to the Act’s 'accomplishment and execution.' And the Court is wrong to hold that the federal Act pre-empts the rule of state law." The dissent concluded, "Here, recognition of that federalist ideal, embodied in specific language in this particular statute, should lead us to uphold California’s law, not to strike it down. We do not honor federalist principles in their breach.”<ref>International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution, Inc., [http://www.cpradr.org/About/NewsandArticles/tabid/265/ID/710/Arbitration-Breyers-ATT-Mobility-Dissent-Says-Decision-Is-Against-Federalist-Principles-April-27.aspx Arbitration: Breyer's AT&T Mobility Dissent Says Decision Is Against 'Federalist Principles' (April 27)], accessed July 23, 2014.</ref>
 
In 2011, Vincent and Liza Concepcion of California brought a class-action lawsuit against AT&T because they "objected to a $30 charge for what was said to be a free cellphone."<ref>Adam Liptak, [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/business/28bizcourt.html Supreme Court Allows Contracts That Prohibit Class-Action Arbitration], New York Times, April 27, 2011.</ref> Although the couple had signed a "take it or leave it" agreement that "required them to resolve disputes through arbitration and barred them from banding together with others to seek class-action treatment", lower federal courts did not enforce the agreement and the case moved forward, reaching the Supreme Court in April of 2011.<ref>Adam Liptak, [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/business/28bizcourt.html Supreme Court Allows Contracts That Prohibit Class-Action Arbitration], New York Times, April 27, 2011.</ref> In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the rulings made by lower courts, determining that that the arbitration agreement signed by the Concepcions was legal according to the Federal Arbitration Act.<ref>SCOTUS Blog, [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/att-mobility-v-concepcion/ AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion], accessed July 23, 2014.</ref> The decision, issued by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] stated, "California state contract law, which deems class-action waivers in arbitration agreements unenforceable when certain criteria are met, is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act because it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress."<ref>SCOTUS Blog, [http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/att-mobility-v-concepcion/ AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion], accessed July 23, 2014.</ref> A dissenting opinion filed by Justice [[Stephen Breyer]] and joined by Justices [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]], Sonia Sotomayor, and [[Elena Kagan]] stated, "This rule of state law is consistent with the [Federal Arbitration] Act’s language and primary objective. It does not 'stan[d] as an obstacle' to the Act’s 'accomplishment and execution.' And the Court is wrong to hold that the federal Act pre-empts the rule of state law." The dissent concluded, "Here, recognition of that federalist ideal, embodied in specific language in this particular statute, should lead us to uphold California’s law, not to strike it down. We do not honor federalist principles in their breach.”<ref>International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution, Inc., [http://www.cpradr.org/About/NewsandArticles/tabid/265/ID/710/Arbitration-Breyers-ATT-Mobility-Dissent-Says-Decision-Is-Against-Federalist-Principles-April-27.aspx Arbitration: Breyer's AT&T Mobility Dissent Says Decision Is Against 'Federalist Principles' (April 27)], accessed July 23, 2014.</ref>
  
−
The ruling holds far-reaching implications for millions of consumers who sign contracts with cell phone and credit card companies and for employees who sign contracts with corporate employers. According to Alliance for Justice, a national association of organizations with progressive values, "[T]he case has had wide-ranging effects on the ability of consumers and employees to vindicate their rights in court and recoup ill-gotten gains from companies. The impact has been felt particularly in the financial services, telecommunications, auto sales, and employment contexts.<ref>Alliance for Justice, [http://afjjusticewatch.blogspot.com/2012/04/one-year-later-consequences-of-at.html One Year Later: The Consequences of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion], April 27, 2012.</ref>   
+
The ruling holds far-reaching implications for millions of consumers who sign contracts with cell phone and credit card companies and for employees who sign contracts with corporate employers. Forbes reported that the case " that could “end class-action litigation in America as we know it.”<ref>Andrew Picnus, [http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/the-advantages-of-arbitration/ The Advantages of Arbitration], New York Times, May 24, 2012.</ref> According to Alliance for Justice, a national association of organizations with progressive values, "[T]he case has had wide-ranging effects on the ability of consumers and employees to vindicate their rights in court and recoup ill-gotten gains from companies. The impact has been felt particularly in the financial services, telecommunications, auto sales, and employment contexts.<ref>Alliance for Justice, [http://afjjusticewatch.blogspot.com/2012/04/one-year-later-consequences-of-at.html One Year Later: The Consequences of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion], April 27, 2012.</ref>   
  
 
===Executives===
 
===Executives===

Revision as of 21:06, 23 July 2014

AT&T is a global telecommunications and networking company that operates in more than 225 countries worldwide.[1] The company is divided into AT&T Business Services and AT&T Consumer Services. In 2005, SBC Communications Inc. (formerly the Southwestern Bell Corporation) bought AT&T Corp., creating the largest telecommunications company in the U.S. In 2006, AT&T purchased BellSouth for $86 billion in the largest telecommunications takeover in U.S. history. Cingular Wireless changed into AT&T Mobility which is under AT&T and is the country's largest wireless carrier.[2]

"Since 1998, the company has given more money in campaign contributions than any other firm in corporate America"[3] and is the 16th highest spender on lobbying, having spent a total of $169,935,644 between 1998 and 2014.[4]

In 2013, AT&T reported total revenues of $128.752 billion,[5] and Randall L. Stephenson, the company's CEO, received a salary of $23,247,167 in that year.[6]

Attempted 2011 Acquisition of T-Mobile

In March 2011 AT&T CEO Randall L. Stephenson announced a proposed $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile USA Inc. (a division of Deutsche Telekom Ag.).[7] The deal was halted by regulators, who in an August 2011 antitrust lawsuit filed by the Justice Department and U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle argued that the deal would "substantially lessen competition for mobile wireless telecommunications services across the United States, resulting in higher prices, poorer quality service, fewer choices and fewer innovative products of the millions of American consumers who rely on mobile wireless services in their everyday lives."[8][9] In November 2011 AT&T "took a $4 billion write-down to cover the breakup fee it must pay to Deutsche Telekom, T-Mobile’s parent",[10] and on December 19, 2011 AT&T ended its bid to acquire T-Mobile.[11] AT&T reported $6.7 billion in losses for the 4th quarter of 2011, most of which resulted from break-up fees associated with the failed merger.[12]


2011 Supreme Court Ruling Prohibiting Class-Action Arbitration, Mobility v. Concepcion

In 2011, Vincent and Liza Concepcion of California brought a class-action lawsuit against AT&T because they "objected to a $30 charge for what was said to be a free cellphone."[13] Although the couple had signed a "take it or leave it" agreement that "required them to resolve disputes through arbitration and barred them from banding together with others to seek class-action treatment", lower federal courts did not enforce the agreement and the case moved forward, reaching the Supreme Court in April of 2011.[14] In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the rulings made by lower courts, determining that that the arbitration agreement signed by the Concepcions was legal according to the Federal Arbitration Act.[15] The decision, issued by Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "California state contract law, which deems class-action waivers in arbitration agreements unenforceable when certain criteria are met, is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act because it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress."[16] A dissenting opinion filed by Justice Stephen Breyer and joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan stated, "This rule of state law is consistent with the [Federal Arbitration] Act’s language and primary objective. It does not 'stan[d] as an obstacle' to the Act’s 'accomplishment and execution.' And the Court is wrong to hold that the federal Act pre-empts the rule of state law." The dissent concluded, "Here, recognition of that federalist ideal, embodied in specific language in this particular statute, should lead us to uphold California’s law, not to strike it down. We do not honor federalist principles in their breach.”[17]

The ruling holds far-reaching implications for millions of consumers who sign contracts with cell phone and credit card companies and for employees who sign contracts with corporate employers. Forbes reported that the case " that could “end class-action litigation in America as we know it.”[18] According to Alliance for Justice, a national association of organizations with progressive values, "[T]he case has had wide-ranging effects on the ability of consumers and employees to vindicate their rights in court and recoup ill-gotten gains from companies. The impact has been felt particularly in the financial services, telecommunications, auto sales, and employment contexts.[19]

Executives

As of July 2014[20]

  • Randall L. Stephenson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
  • William A. Blase, Jr., Senior Executive Vice President – Human Resources
  • James W. Cicconi, Senior Executive Vice President – External and Legislative Affairs, AT&T Services, Inc
  • Cathy M. Coughlin, Senior Executive Vice President and Global Marketing Officer
  • Ralph de la Vega, President and Chief Executive Officer - AT&T Mobility
  • John Donovan, Senior Executive Vice President, AT&T Technology and Network Operations
  • Andrew M. Geisse, Chief Executive Officer — AT&T Business Solutions
  • Lori Lee, Senior Executive Vice President, Home Solutions
  • John T. Stankey, Group President and Chief Strategy Officer
  • John Stephens, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
  • Wayne Watts, Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel

Former executives include[21][22]

  • James W. Callaway, former Senior Executive Vice President-Executive Operations
  • Richard G. Lindner, former Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
  • Ronald E. Spears, former Senior Executive Vice President – Executive Operations

Board of Directors

As of July 2014[23]

Former board members include[24][25]

  • William F. Aldinger III
  • Gilbert F. Amelio
  • James H. Blanchard - Former Lead Director
  • August A. Busch III, Former Chairman of the Board of Anheuser-Busch
  • Lynn M. Martin
  • Patricia P. Upton
  • Mary S. Metz

Financials

Annual Revenue

2013[26]
Total Revenue: $128.752 billion
Gross Profit: $77,288,000
Net Income: $18,249,000

2012[27]
Total Revenue: $127.434 billion
Gross Profit: $72,206,000
Net Income: $7,264,000

2011[28]
Total Revenue: $126.7 billion
Net Income: $4.2 billion

2010
Total Revenue: $124.3 billion
Net Income: $20.2 billion

2009
Total Revenue: $122.5 billion
Net Income: $12.4 billion

2008
Total Revenue: $123.4 billion
Net Income: $-2.4 billion

2007
Total Revenue: $118.3 billion
Net Income: $17.2 billion

Executive Compensation

2013

Political Spending

2012[30]
Contributions- $5,027,510
Lobbying - $17,460,000

Top Recipients:

Contact Information


208 South Akard Street
Dallas, TX 75202
phone: (210)-821-4105


email: info@att.com

  1. ↑ AT&T, Key Facts, organizational website, accessed July 22, 2014.
  2. ↑ Hoovers, Profile, accessed July 2007.
  3. ↑ Cecilia Kang and Jia Lynn Yang, How AT&T fumbled $39 billion bid to acquire T-Mobile, The Washington Post, December 10, 2011.
  4. ↑ Open Secrets, Top Spenders, accessed July 23, 2014.
  5. ↑ AT&T,"2011 Annual Report", organizational document, page 3.
  6. ↑ Forbes, Randall Stephenson, accessed July 22, 2014.
  7. ↑ AT&T, AT&T to Acquire T-Mobile USA From Deutsche Telekom, organizational website, March 20, 2011.
  8. ↑ US Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs, Justice Department Files Antitrust Lawsuit to Block AT&T’s Acquisition of T-Mobile, August 31, 2011.
  9. ↑ Tom Schoenberg, Sara Forden and Jeff Bliss, T-Mobile Antitrust Challenge Leaves AT&T With Little Recourse on Takeover, Bloomberg, September 1, 2011.
  10. ↑ Cecilia Kang and Jia Lynn Yang, How AT&T fumbled $39 billion bid to acquire T-Mobile, The Washington Post, December 10, 2011.
  11. ↑ AT&T, AT&T Ends Bid To Add Network Capacity Through T-Mobile USA Purchase, organizational website, December 19, 2011.
  12. ↑ Jenna Wortham, AT&T in $6.7 Billion Loss on Failure of T-Mobile Deal, New York Times, January 26, 2012.
  13. ↑ Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Allows Contracts That Prohibit Class-Action Arbitration, New York Times, April 27, 2011.
  14. ↑ Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Allows Contracts That Prohibit Class-Action Arbitration, New York Times, April 27, 2011.
  15. ↑ SCOTUS Blog, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, accessed July 23, 2014.
  16. ↑ SCOTUS Blog, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, accessed July 23, 2014.
  17. ↑ International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution, Inc., Arbitration: Breyer's AT&T Mobility Dissent Says Decision Is Against 'Federalist Principles' (April 27), accessed July 23, 2014.
  18. ↑ Andrew Picnus, The Advantages of Arbitration, New York Times, May 24, 2012.
  19. ↑ Alliance for Justice, One Year Later: The Consequences of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, April 27, 2012.
  20. ↑ Executive Bios, accessed July 2014.
  21. ↑ Executives, accessed July 2007.
  22. ↑ Executive Bios, accessed July 2014.
  23. ↑ Corporate Governance, accessed July 2014.
  24. ↑ AT&T Board, accessed September 2008.
  25. ↑ AT&T Board, accessed July 2014.
  26. ↑ Yahoo, AT&T Inc. Income Statement, accessed July 22, 2014.
  27. ↑ Yahoo, AT&T Inc. Income Statement, accessed July 22, 2014.
  28. ↑ AT&T, "2011 Annual Report", organizational document, page 30.
  29. ↑ Forbes, Randall Stephenson, accessed July 22, 2014.
  30. ↑ Open Secrets, AT&T Inc, Profile for 2012 Election Cycle, accessed July 23, 2014.
Retrieved from "https://dev.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:AT%26T&oldid=655808"