DNA Analysis, More Accessible Than Ever, Opens New Doors

Matt Roth for The New York Times

Sam Bosley of Frederick, Md., going shopping with his daughter, Lillian, 13, who has a malformed brain and severe developmental delays, seizures and vision problems. More Photos »

Debra Sukin and her husband were determined to take no chances with her second pregnancy. Their first child, Jacob, who had a serious genetic disorder, did not babble when he was a year old and had severe developmental delays. So the second time around, Ms. Sukin had what was then the most advanced prenatal testing.

The test found no sign of Angelman syndrome, the rare genetic disorder that had struck Jacob. But as months passed, Eli was not crawling or walking or babbling at ages when other babies were.

“Whatever the milestones were, my son was not meeting them,” Ms. Sukin said.

Desperate to find out what is wrong with Eli, now 8, the Sukins, of The Woodlands, Tex., have become pioneers in a new kind of testing that is proving particularly helpful in diagnosing mysterious neurological illnesses in children. Scientists sequence all of a patient’s genes, systematically searching for disease-causing mutations.

A few years ago, this sort of test was so difficult and expensive that it was generally only available to participants in research projects like those sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. But the price has plunged in just a few years from tens of thousands of dollars to around $7,000 to $9,000 for a family. Baylor College of Medicine and a handful of companies are now offering it. Insurers usually pay.

Demand has soared — at Baylor, for example, scientists analyzed 5 to 10 DNA sequences a month when the program started in November 2011. Now they are doing more than 130 analyses a month. At the National Institutes of Health, which handles about 300 cases a year as part of its research program, demand is so great that the program is expected to ultimately take on 800 to 900 a year.

The test is beginning to transform life for patients and families who have often spent years searching for answers. They can now start the grueling process with DNA sequencing, says Dr. Wendy K. Chung, professor of pediatrics and medicine at Columbia University.

“Most people originally thought of using it as a court of last resort,” Dr. Chung said. “Now we can think of it as a first-line test.”

Even if there is no treatment, there is almost always some benefit to diagnosis, geneticists say. It can give patients and their families the certainty of knowing what is wrong and even a prognosis. It can also ease the processing of medical claims, qualifying for special education services, and learning whether subsequent children might be at risk.

“Imagine the people who drive across the whole country looking for that one neurologist who can help, or scrubbing the whole house with Lysol because they think it might be an allergy,” said Richard A. Gibbs, the director of Baylor College of Medicine’s gene sequencing program. “Those kinds of stories are the rule, not the exception.”

Experts caution that gene sequencing is no panacea. It finds a genetic aberration in only about 25 to 30 percent of cases. About 3 percent of patients end up with better management of their disorder. About 1 percent get a treatment and a major benefit.

“People come to us with huge expectations,” said Dr. William A. Gahl, who directs the N.I.H. program. “They think, ‘You will take my DNA and find the causes and give me a treatment.' ”

“We give the impression that we can do these things because we only publish our successes,” Dr. Gahl said, adding that when patients come to him, “we try to make expectations realistic.”

DNA sequencing was not available when Debra and Steven Sukin began trying to find out what was wrong with Eli. When he was 3, they tried microarray analysis, a genetic test that is nowhere near as sensitive as sequencing. It detected no problems.

“My husband and I looked at each other and said, ‘The good news is that everything is fine; the bad news is that everything is not fine,' ” Ms. Sukin said.

In November 2011, when Eli was 6, Ms. Sukin consulted Dr. Arthur L. Beaudet, a medical geneticist at Baylor.

“Is there a protein missing?” she recalled asking him. “Is there something biochemical we could be missing?”

By now, DNA sequencing had come of age. Dr. Beaudet said that Eli was a great candidate, and it turned out that the new procedure held an answer.

A single DNA base was altered in a gene called CASK, resulting in a disorder so rare that there are fewer than 10 cases in all the world’s medical literature.

“It really became definitive for my husband and me,” Ms. Sukin said. “We would need to do lifelong planning for dependent care for the rest of his life.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 19, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated the name of a medicine taken by two teenagers who have a rare gene mutation. The drug is 5-hydroxytryptophan, not 5-hydroxytryptamine.

Read More..

Dell’s Revenue Falls 11 Percent

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Dell Inc on Tuesday reported a 31 percent drop in profit, hurt by a shrinking consumer business, as investors weighed founder Michael Dell's offer to buy out the world's No.3 maker of personal computers.

Michael Dell, teaming up with private equity firm Silver Lake and software maker Microsoft, is offering $13.65 a share to buy out the company, but at least four of its largest investors are opposed to the $24.4 billion deal.

The founder and CEO did not join in management discussion of the results in a conference call with analysts, given his participation in the buyout. Dell executives also did not comment on the buyout.

Analysts said Dell's rapidly shrinking business and murky prospects in a declining PC market may make the buyout a more attractive option for investors tired of waiting for a turnaround.

Since news of the proposed buyout emerged in January, the stock has gained almost 30 percent - a rally that analysts say may evaporate should the deal fall through.

On Tuesday, the company said sales across every business line, except servers and networking, declined in the fiscal fourth quarter. Revenue from servers and networking climbed 18 percent, driven by its datacenter business and revenue from recently acquired companies such as Quest Software and Sonic Wall.

Overall, however, revenue slid 11 percent.

"There isn't anything really to be super excited about," Brian Marshall, analyst with ISI Group, said, adding that declining revenue and profit doesn't bode well for the company.

"The (buyout) deal makes sense. It will go through," he said. "They will probably have to pay a little more than $13.65 to get it done but at the end of the day there aren't a lot of options out there."

The company gave no financial forecast for fiscal 2014 or the fiscal first quarter, citing the proposed buyout.

The company reiterated that it plans to file a proxy statement with the U.S. securities regulators on the merger agreement but made no other reference to the buyout in its earnings release.

Shareholders representing almost 14 percent of Dell shares not held by Michael Dell have now said they will vote against the deal. The billionaire, who created the computer maker from his college dorm room in 1984, holds a roughly 16 percent stake and needs a majority of shareholders - excluding him - to vote for the deal.

Some are holding out hope for a higher offer. Peter Misek, analyst with Jefferies, said a bumped-up offer of about $15 per share was a "fair price."

"The better-than-expected results means that's the fair thing to do, in our opinion, is to raise the bid to a price where current shareholders reap some of the rewards while the take-private consortium enjoys the prospect of a respectable return," Misek said.

SLIDING PC SALES

Dell posted net income of $530 million, or 30 cents a share, in its fiscal fourth quarter on revenue of $14.3 billion. That came in slightly higher than the average analyst estimate of revenue of $14.12 billion, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.

Excluding certain items, it earned 40 cents a share, compared to an average forecast for 39 cents.

Shares of the company edged 0.5 percent higher in after-hours trade to $13.87, from a close of $13.805 on the Nasdaq.

Dell has said it plans to stick to its current turnaround strategy to diversify away from personal computers following the buyout.

The company, once regarded as a model of innovation in the early 2000s for pioneering online ordering of custom-configured PCs, missed the big industry shift to tablet computers, smartphones and high-powered consumer electronics such as music players.

It is also had to defend its market share against hard-charging Asian rivals like Lenovo.

Dell has lost 40 percent of its value since last year's peak and is trying to reinvent itself as a seller of services to corporations - an internal overhaul that some analysts say may be better conducted away from public scrutiny.

The company, was also hurt by the slide in holiday-season sales of personal computers for the first time in more than five years despite the launch of Microsoft Corp's new Windows 8 operating system.

Dell's worldwide PC shipments fell nearly 21 percent to 9.48 million in the last three months of 2012 from 11.97 million in the same period a year ago, according to IDC.

The bright spot for Dell was its growing sales of its enterprise solutions and services revenue, which rose 6 percent to $5.2 billion, and accounted for 34 percent of revenue for fiscal year.

In contrast, consumer revenue plummeted 24 percent to $2.8 billion, underscoring the plight of the broader PC market while sales to large corporations declined 7 percent to $4.7 billion in the quarter.

Dell said it was seeing growth in tablets and low-end desktops and notebooks. It ended fiscal 2013 with $15.3 billion in cash and investments.

(Reporting by Poornima Gupta; Editing by Dale Hudson, Bernard Orr)

Read More..

Sidebar: Bucking Trend, Supreme Court Still Rejects Video Coverage

WASHINGTON — Justice Sonia Sotomayor, populist, revealed a paternalistic streak this month, announcing that she had rethought her enthusiasm for video coverage of Supreme Court arguments.

At her confirmation hearings in 2009, she said she was in favor of letting citizens see their government at work. “I have had positive experiences with cameras,” she said. “When I have been asked to join experiments of using cameras in the courtroom, I have participated. I have volunteered.”

She was singing a different tune a couple of weeks ago, telling Charlie Rose that most Americans would not understand what goes on at Supreme Court arguments and that there was little point in letting them try.

“I don’t think most viewers take the time to actually delve into either the briefs or the legal arguments to appreciate what the court is doing,” she said. “They speculate about, oh, the judge favors this point rather than that point. Very few of them understand what the process is, which is to play devil’s advocate.”

As a descriptive matter, she was right: making sense of a Supreme Court argument without substantial preparation is hard. But Justice Sotomayor’s approach also sounds like an intellectual poll tax that could just as well justify limiting attendance in the courtroom to people smart enough and diligent enough to know what is going on.

The court’s newest member, Justice Elena Kagan, has also done an about-face. At her confirmation hearings in 2010, she said video coverage “would be a great thing for the institution, and more important, I think it would be a great thing for the American people.” Two years later, she said she now had “a few worries, including that people might play to the camera” and that the coverage could be misused.

Even as the Supreme Court is digging in its heels, nations with legal systems similar to the one in the United States are moving in the other direction.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which was formed in 2009, allows camera coverage. Last month, Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge, the head of the judiciary for England and Wales, announced that cameras would be allowed in appeal courts starting in October, after judges receive media training.

Lord Judge agreed with Justice Sotomayor, to a point. “I suspect John and Jane Citizen will find it incredibly dull,” he told a committee of the House of Lords. But that did not seem to him a reason to prevent them from trying to make sense of the proceedings.

Arguments in the Supreme Court of Canada have been broadcast since the mid-1990s, and more recently they have been streamed live on the Internet.

Owen M. Rees, the court’s executive legal officer, said the experience had been positive.

“The filming of the Supreme Court of Canada’s hearings has increased the public’s access to the court and its understanding of the court’s work,” he said. “Of course, each court must make its own evaluation of whether introducing cameras in the courtroom would be appropriate.”

In a speech last year, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of Canada suggested that the American court system might have things backward.

In the United States, cameras are commonplace in state trial and appeals courts, and the lower federal courts have experimented with them. Only in the Supreme Court is there categorical resistance.

“The general practice in Canada is precisely the opposite,” Chief Justice McLachlin said. “Canadian trial courts have generally not permitted their hearings to be broadcast on television, where witnesses are involved.”

Lord Judge made a similar point, saying he would draw the line at criminal trials before juries, for fear that witnesses might be intimidated.

A pair of new law review articles tries to make sense of the gaps between the American and international approaches.

In one of them, in The Arizona State Law Journal, Nancy S. Marder, who teaches at the Chicago-Kent College of Law at the Illinois Institute of Technology, noted correctly that “most countries do not allow cameras in their courtrooms” and concluded that “cameras in federal courtrooms will do more harm than good at this time.” In an interview, she said she worried about a culture in which “everything becomes entertainment, focusing on the gaffe.”

But Kyu Ho Youm, a First Amendment scholar at the University of Oregon’s journalism school, said the United States Supreme Court was betraying a distinctively American commitment to free expression and access to information.

“The U.K. and Canadian justices had their own worries and concerns when they opened up their doors to cameras,” he wrote in The Brigham Young University Law Review. “However, these justices now concede they were wrong.”

“Many people outside the U.S. are wondering,” Dr. Youm said in an interview, “why the U.S. is so calcified in its thinking about cameras in the Supreme Court.”

Tony Mauro, a reporter with The National Law Journal and a student of the arguments for and against cameras, proposed an answer in an article in 2011. “The root of almost every objection the justices have expressed about camera access,” he wrote, “is the justices’ deeply held feeling that their court is exceptional — unlike any other public institution.”

Mr. Mauro was onto something. At a judicial conference in 2011, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., asked Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. for his position on cameras and got a telling response. The chief justice had been considering the international context.

“The Supreme Court is different,” he said, “not only domestically, but in terms of its impact worldwide.”

Chief Justice Roberts said he worried about the effect that cameras would have on lawyers and, perhaps more important, on the justices, who may have less self-control than their counterparts abroad.

“We unfortunately fall into grandstanding with a couple of hundred people in the room,” the chief justice said.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 18, 2013

An earlier version of this article reported incorrectly that an article by Nancy S. Marder would be published in The Brigham Young University Law Review next month.  The article will be published in The Arizona State Law Journal later this month.

Read More..

Singer Mindy McCready dies in apparent suicide

HEBER SPRINGS, Ark. (AP) — Perhaps there was one heartbreak too many for Mindy McCready.

The former country star apparently took her own life on Sunday at her home in Heber Springs, Ark. Authorities say McCready died of a suspected self-inflicted gunshot to the head and an autopsy is planned. She was 37, and left behind two young sons.

McCready had attempted suicide at least three times since 2005, as she struggled to cope amid a series of tumultuous public events that marked much of her adult life.

Speaking to The Associated Press in 2010, McCready smiled wryly while talking about the string of issues she'd dealt with over the last half-decade.

"It is a giant whirlwind of chaos all the time," she said of her life. "I call my life a beautiful mess and organized chaos. It's just always been like that. My entire life things have been attracted to me and vice versa that turn into chaotic nightmares or I create the chaos myself. I think that's really the life of a celebrity, of a big, huge, giant personality."

This time it seems the whirlwind overwhelmed McCready.

Her death comes a month after that of David Wilson, her longtime boyfriend and the father of her youngest son. He is believed to have shot himself on the same porch of the home they shared in Heber Springs, a small vacation community about 65 miles north of Little Rock. His death also was investigated as a suicide.

It was the most difficult moment in a life full of them. McCready issued a statement last month lamenting his death. And she called him her soul mate and a caregiver to her sons in an interview with NBC's "Today" show.

"I just keep telling myself that the more suffering that I go through, the greater character I'll have," she said, according to a transcript of the interview.

Melinda Gayle McCready arrived in Nashville in 1994, still in her teens with tapes of her karaoke vocals and earned a recording contract with BNA Records. She had a few memorable moments professionally, scoring her first No. 1 hit almost immediately.

"Guys Do It All the Time," a self-assured dig at male chauvinism, endeared her to female fans in 1996. She also scored a hit with "Ten Thousand Angels," and her album of that title sold 2 million copies.

Like so many times before, McCready showed a little toughness in the midst of a personal storm, again endearing herself to her fans. But as usual, the brave face for the camera hid a much more complicated internal struggle that surfaced publicly time and again over the last 10 years.

This time, along with her remembrances of finding Wilson as he lay dying, she also answered questions about whether they'd argued earlier that evening about an affair and if she'd shot him.

"Oh, my God," the "Today" transcript reads. "No. Oh, my God. No. He was my life. We were each other's life."

It's unclear what circumstances led to McCready taking her own life, but it appears she was struggling again with twin issues that have persisted for years: substance abuse and the custody of her children.

She checked into court-ordered rehab and gave her children up to foster care earlier this month after her father asked a judge to intervene, saying she'd stopped taking care of herself and her sons, and that she was abusing alcohol and prescription drugs.

It's unclear why McCready was out of rehab.

Billy McKnight, McCready's ex-boyfriend and the father of her oldest son, said the children remain in foster care. Arkansas Department of Human Services spokeswoman Amy Webb could not confirm their whereabouts, citing agency rules.

McCready's relationship with McKnight was one of the more difficult periods of her life. McKnight was arrested in 2005 on charges of attempted murder after authorities say he beat and choked her. And the two continued to struggle over their son with McKnight recently filing for custody in light of McCready's latest sting in rehab.

McCready made headlines in April 2008 when she claimed a longtime relationship with baseball great Roger Clemens. Published reports at the time said she met the pitcher at a Florida karaoke bar when she was 15 and he was 28 and married. Clemens has denied the relationship.

On Monday, Clemens handed a written statement to reporters at the Houston Astros spring training facility in Kissimmee, Fla., where he is serving as a special instructor for the team.

"Yes, that is sad news. I had heard over time that she was trying to get peace and direction in her life. The few times that I had met her and her manager/agent they were extremely nice."

McCready also was engaged to actor Dean Cain in 1997, but their relationship fell apart as well.

Her troubles weren't just romantic. Over time she was arrested for fraudulently obtaining prescription drugs, probation violation, misdemeanor assault of her mother Gayle Inge and other problems.

In 2010, after a stint on Dr. Drew Pinsky's "Celebrity Rehab 3" where she was treated for "love addiction," she told The Associated Press she may have finally found love and the strength to get her life back on track.

Pinsky, who had no comment Sunday, called McCready an "angel" in the season finale and expressed hope she would continue to seek treatment in a later interview. McCready suffered a seizure in one of the show's scarier moments. Tests showed she had suffered brain damage, something she attributed to her abuse at the hands of McKnight.

McCready is the fifth celebrity to pass away since appearing on Pinsky's show and the third from Season 3. Alice in Chains bassist Mike Starr and "Real World" participant Joey Kovar both died of overdoses.

She entered her relationship with Wilson, a producer and musician who was 34 when he died last month, a short time later. She'd just met Wilson and talked openly about their relationship in the 2010 interview. Wilson declined to speak on the record.

With a publicist, reporters, cameras, makeup artists and musicians swirling around her during a press day for her last album, "I'm Still Here," McCready fended off questions about a sex tape and said she and Wilson started out as friends.

"And I've never had a relationship like that before where we started completely as friends," she said. "It turned into friends really caring about each other and then it turned into love and I've never had that happen before."

Things didn't remain calm for long, though. Unhappy with custody arrangements, McCready took her older son from her mother, the boy's legal guardian, in late 2011. She fled to Arkansas without permission over what she called child abuse fears. Authorities eventually found McCready hiding in a home without permission and took the boy into custody.

She and Wilson had their son in April 2012, and she regained custody of Zander in December. But Wilson's death appears to have led to another dark period.

"I met Mindy at 23 coming off of a big record, and from knowing her as personal as I did back then, sometimes being famous can hurt you," McKnight said in a phone interview Monday from Tampa, Fla. "I think she was too young. I think that she was having some personal issues in her life and her family anyways, and when she got famous ... she started mixing booze and pills and the negativity, it took the best of her."

___

Music Writer Chris Talbott reported from Nashville, Tenn. Sports Writer Noah Trister, in Kissimmee, Fla., contributed to this report.

___

Follow AP Music Writer Chris Talbott: http://twitter.com/Chris_Talbott.

Read More..

Personal Health: Health Effects of Smoking for Women

The title of a recent report on smoking and health might well have paraphrased the popular ad campaign for Virginia Slims, introduced in 1968 by Philip Morris and aimed at young professional women: “You’ve come a long way, baby.”

Today that slogan should include: “. . . toward a shorter life.” Ten years shorter, in fact.

The new report is one of two rather shocking analyses of the hazards of smoking and the benefits of quitting published last month in The New England Journal of Medicine. The data show that “women who smoke like men die like men who smoke,” Dr. Steven A. Schroeder, a professor of health and health care at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

That was not always the case. Half a century ago, the risk of death from lung cancer among men who smoked was five times higher than that among women smokers. But by the first decade of this century, that risk had equalized: for both men and women who smoked, the risk of death from lung cancer was 25 times greater than for nonsmokers, Dr. Michael J. Thun of the American Cancer Society and his colleagues reported.

Today, women who smoke are even more likely than men who smoke to die of lung cancer. According to a second study in the same journal, women smokers face a 17.8 times greater risk of dying of lung cancer, than women who do not smoke; men who smoke are at 14.6 times greater risk to die of lung cancer than men who don’t. Women who smoke now face a risk of death from lung cancer that is 50 percent higher than the estimates reported in the 1980s, according to Dr. Prabhat Jha of the Center for Global Health Research in Toronto and his colleagues.

After controlling for age, body weight, education level and alcohol use, the new analysis found something else: men and women who continue to smoke die on average more than 10 years sooner than those who never smoked.

Dramatic progress has been made in reducing the prevalence of smoking, which has fallen in the United States from 42 percent of adults in 1965 (the year after the first surgeon general’s report on smoking and health) to 19 percent in 2010. Yet smoking still results in nearly 200,000 deaths a year among people 35 to 69 years old in this country. A quarter of all deaths in this age group would not occur if smokers had the same risk of death as nonsmokers.

The risks are even greater among men 55 to 74 and women 60 to 74. More than two-thirds of all deaths among current smokers in these age groups are related to smoking. Over all, the death rate from all causes combined in these age groups “is now at least three times as high among current smokers as among those who have never smoked,” Dr. Thun’s team found.

While lung cancer is the most infamous hazard linked to smoking, the habit also raises the risk of death from heart disease, stroke, pulmonary disease and other cancers, including breast cancer.

Furthermore, changes in how cigarettes are manufactured may have increased the dangers of smoking. The use of perforated filters, tobacco blends that are less irritating, and paper that is more porous made it easier to inhale smoke and encouraged deeper inhalation to achieve satisfying blood levels of nicotine.

The result of deeper inhalation, Dr. Thun’s report suggests, has been an increased risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or C.O.P.D., and a shift in the kind of lung cancer linked to smoking. Among nonsmokers, the risk of death from C.O.P.D. has declined by 45 percent in men and has remained stable in women, but the death rate has more than doubled among smokers.

But there is good news, too: it’s never too late to reap the benefits of quitting. The younger you are when you stop smoking, the greater your chances of living a long and healthy life, according to the findings of Dr. Jha’s international team.

The team analyzed smoking and smoking-cessation histories of 113,752 women and 88,496 men 25 and older and linked them to causes of deaths in these groups through 2006.

Those who quit smoking by age 34 lived 10 years longer on average than those who continued to smoke, giving them a life expectancy comparable to people who never smoked. Smokers who quit between ages 35 and 44 lived nine years longer, and those who quit between 45 and 54 lived six years longer. Even quitting smoking between ages 55 and 64 resulted in a four-year gain in life expectancy.

The researchers emphasized, however, that the numbers do not mean it is safe to smoke until age 40 and then stop. Former smokers who quit by 40 still experienced a 20 percent greater risk of death than nonsmokers. About one in six former smokers who died before the age of 80 would not have died so young if he or she had never smoked, they reported.

Dr. Schroeder believes we can do a lot better to reduce the prevalence of smoking with the tools currently in hand if government agencies, medical insurers and the public cooperate.

Unlike the races, ribbons and fund-raisers for breast cancer, “there’s no public face for lung cancer, even though it kills more women than breast cancer does,” Dr. Schroeder said in an interview. Lung cancer is stigmatized as a disease people bring on themselves, even though many older victims were hooked on nicotine in the 1940s and 1950s, when little was known about the hazards of smoking and doctors appeared in ads assuring the public it was safe to smoke.

Raising taxes on cigarettes can help. The states with the highest prevalence of smoking have the lowest tax rates on cigarettes, Dr. Schroeder said. Also helpful would be prohibiting smoking in more public places like parks and beaches. Some states have criminalized smoking in cars when children are present.

More “countermarketing” of cigarettes is needed, he said, including antismoking public service ads on television and dramatic health warnings on cigarette packs, as is now done in Australia. But two American courts have ruled that the proposed label warnings infringed on the tobacco industry’s right to free speech.

Health insurers, both private and government, could broaden their coverage of stop-smoking aids and better publicize telephone quit lines, and doctors “should do more to stimulate quit attempts,” Dr. Schroeder said.

As Nicola Roxon, a former Australian health minister, put it, “We are killing people by not acting.”

Read More..

DealBook: Reader's Digest Files for Bankruptcy, Again

Executives at Reader’s Digest must be hoping that the magazine’s second trip to bankruptcy court in under four years will be its last.

The magazine’s parent, RDA Holding, filed for Chapter 11 protection late on Sunday in another effort to cut down the debt that has plagued the pocket-size publication for years. The company is hoping to convert about $465 million of its debt into equity held by its creditors.

In a court filing, Reader’s Digest said it held about $1.1 billion in assets and just under $1.2 billion in debt. It has provisionally lined up about $105 million in financing to keep it afloat during the Chapter 11 case.

This week’s filing is the latest effort by the 91-year-old publisher, whose magazine once resided on many American coffee tables, to fix itself in a difficult economic environment.

“After considering a wide range of alternatives, we believe this course of action will most effectively enable us to maintain our momentum in transforming the business and allow us to capitalize on the growing strength and presence of our outstanding brands and products,” Robert E. Guth, the company’s chief executive, said in a statement.

Reader’s Digest last filed for bankruptcy in 2009, emerging a year later under the control of lenders like JPMorgan Chase.

That reorganization substantially cut the publisher’s debt, and afterward the company worked to further shrink its footprint. It jettisoned nonessential publications in a series of deals, including the $180 million sale of Allrecipes.com and the $4.3 million sale of Every Day With Rachael Ray, both to the Meredith Corporation.

Most of the money from those transactions went to pay down a still significant debt burden. But the company remained pressured by what it described in a court filing as steep declines that still bedevil the media industry. Last year, the publisher began negotiating with its lenders, including Wells Fargo, about amending some of its debt obligations. That process eventually led to a “pre-negotiated agreement” with creditors, which will be put into effect by the bankruptcy filing.

This time, Reader’s Digest is hoping to spend even less time in court. Mr. Guth said in a court filing that the publisher aims to emerge from bankruptcy protection in about four months.

The company’s biggest unsecured creditors include firms represented by Luxor Capital. The Federal Trade Commission also contends that it is owed $8.8 million in a settlement claim.

Reader’s Digest is being advised by Evercore Partners and the law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges.

Reader's Digest bankruptcy petition (2013) by

Declaration by Reader's Digest Chief Executive by

Read More..

Protests at Egypt Port Close Offices, but Not Suez Canal

CAIRO — Thousands of demonstrators shut down the administrative buildings of the Suez Canal terminal in the city of Port Said on Sunday, as part of a general strike protesting the death sentences handed down three weeks ago to 21 local soccer fans for their roles in a deadly riot last year.

The protests marked the closest that the chaos in Egypt over the last two years has come to threatening the operations of the Suez Canal, an artery of shipping critical to both international commerce and the battered Egyptian economy.

The administrative facilities were emptied as the protesters approached, residents said, but a military guard protected the port from disruption. President Mohamed Morsi, of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm, had deployed the military to protect the city when the protests there started three weeks ago.

The success of the strike, as life had begun to return to the streets, was a vivid reminder that the government in Cairo has not yet restored full control over Port Said, a major city at the Mediterranean head of the Suez Canal with a population of about 600,000. The government essentially backed down from its attempt to impose a curfew, and nothing has diminished the underlying anger behind the riots, first over the initial death sentences and then over the deaths of dozens of protesters in clashes with the police.

The possibility of a threat to the flow of traffic through the canal remains remote, but the Sunday protest raised the specter of such disruption at a critical time. Political turbulence has cut deeply into tourism and economic growth in the two years since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak. And now the political instability keeps delaying a proposed $4.8 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund, whose seal of approval is essential to obtaining the further billions in loans needed to close the country’s deficit.

The Egyptian pound is falling sharply against the dollar. Unemployment is high and prices are rising. The Suez Canal is one of Egypt’s main sources of hard currency, along with tourism, foreign aid, and remittances from Egyptians abroad.

The protest was also a rare example of major civil disobedience in Egypt since the revolution that overthrew Mr. Mubarak in early 2011. It was the first day of the work week here, and Egyptian state media and residents of Port Said said that demonstrators had gathered outside the provincial headquarters at 7 a.m., blocking access to the building.

The protesters urged employees of the provincial government, the court house, the telephone and natural gas utilities, customs offices and other government institutions to quit work and join their strike. Many did, the Web site of the state newspaper Al Ahram reported. Protesters blocked railways. Photographs that circulated on the Internet showed women sitting on desks they had dragged outside in a shutdown of a school, although residents said some schools and courts remained opened.

Al Ahram reported that the demonstrators were demanding legal action against police officers who had killed protesters during last month’s clashes. They also sought a review by a “neutral court” of the death sentences against the local soccer fans delivered in Cairo. The soccer brawl in the case took place at a match between bitter rivals, El Masry of Port Said and Al Ahly of Cairo, both of which have large followings of violent hard-core fans. Many residents of Port Said say they believe the sentencing judge succumbed to pressure from violent Cairo soccer fans who demanded retribution.

Mayy El Sheikh contributed reporting.

Read More..

Discovery bets on 2 dope series about pot growers

NEW YORK (AP) — Cupcake makers, pawnbrokers and storage container raiders have all had their moments in reality television's spotlight. Now the time may be right for marijuana growers — and the people who chase them.

The Discovery network debuts a six-episode series, "Weed Country," at 10 p.m. Wednesday and will replace it with "Pot Cops" in April. Both examine the marijuana trade in northern California.

It fits Discovery's efforts to introduce interesting subcultures to viewers, said Nancy Daniels, the network's executive vice president for production and development on the West Coast. Discovery tried a series about a medical marijuana dispensary in Oakland two years ago, "Weed Wars," and is sticking with dope even though the show didn't do very well in the ratings.

"We still think it's an interesting world and maybe we didn't tap into the right part of it," Daniels said.

Based on its first episode, "Weed Country" is a nuanced effort at giving equal time to both sides of the issue. Producers find colorful growers who use science to make the best product possible. They don't believe what they are doing is wrong. "We're flying the flag of civil disobedience," one grower said.

The growers may be trying to dodge the law, but don't hesitate to open up different facets of their business to television cameras.

At the same time, "Weed Country" shows the challenges faced by law enforcement. It follows one group's careful training for backwoods missions to find farms guarded by growers who are armed and intent upon protecting their crops.

"It surprised me with how deep and complex it was," Daniels said.

The show does have some distracting reality TV contrivances. Before one commercial break, a grower making a late-night delivery to a customer becomes suspicious of a van that ominously pulls out behind him on a dark road. After the break, the van drives innocently by. At another point, producers lead you to believe the grower is about to be pulled over by police when, after a commercial, it becomes clear the officer is going after someone else.

The "Pot Cops" series will be told from the point of view of law enforcement, after producers reached an agreement for access to officers hunting down marijuana farms in California's Humboldt County.

Discovery had planned to air the two programs back-to-back on the same night and promote it as "Weed Wednesday" on the network. But those plans were dropped because unrelated programming expected to be available this spring had fallen through and Discovery needed "Pot Cops" to fill a hole on its schedule in April.

The change had nothing to do with feeling cold feet about a "Weed Wednesday" promotion, Daniels said.

Read More..

Cuomo Bucks Tide With Bill to Lift Abortion Limits

ALBANY — Bucking a trend in which states have been seeking to restrict abortion, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is putting the finishing touches on legislation that would guarantee women in New York the right to late-term abortions when their health is in danger or the fetus is not viable.

Mr. Cuomo, seeking to deliver on a promise he made in his recent State of the State address, would rewrite a law that currently allows abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy only if the pregnant woman’s life is at risk. The law is not enforced, because it is superseded by federal court rulings that allow late-term abortions to protect a woman’s health, even if her life is not in jeopardy. But abortion rights advocates say the existence of the more restrictive state law has a chilling effect on some doctors and prompts some women to leave the state for late-term abortions.

Mr. Cuomo’s proposal, which has not yet been made public, would also clarify that licensed health care practitioners, and not only physicians, can perform abortions. It would remove abortion from the state’s penal law and regulate it through the state’s public health law.

Abortion rights advocates have welcomed Mr. Cuomo’s plan, which he outlined in general terms as part of a broader package of women’s rights initiatives in his State of the State address in January. But the Roman Catholic Church and anti-abortion groups are dismayed; opponents have labeled the legislation the Abortion Expansion Act.

The prospects for Mr. Cuomo’s effort are uncertain. The State Assembly is controlled by Democrats who support abortion rights; the Senate is more difficult to predict because this year it is controlled by a coalition of Republicans who have tended to oppose new abortion rights laws and breakaway Democrats who support abortion rights.

New York legalized abortion in 1970, three years before it was legalized nationally by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. Mr. Cuomo’s proposal would update the state law so that it could stand alone if the broader federal standard set by Roe were to be undone.

“Why are we doing this? The Supreme Court could change,” said a senior Cuomo administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the governor had not formally introduced his proposal.

But opponents of abortion rights, already upset at the high rate of abortions in New York State, worry that rewriting the abortion law would encourage an even greater number of abortions. For example, they suggest that the provision to allow abortions late in a woman’s pregnancy for health reasons could be used as a loophole to allow unchecked late-term abortions.

“I am hard pressed to think of a piece of legislation that is less needed or more harmful than this one,” the archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, wrote in a letter to Mr. Cuomo last month. Referring to Albany lawmakers in a subsequent column, he added, “It’s as though, in their minds, our state motto, ‘Excelsior’ (‘Ever Upward’), applies to the abortion rate.”

National abortion rights groups have sought for years to persuade state legislatures to adopt laws guaranteeing abortion rights as a backup to Roe. But they have had limited success: Only seven states have such measures in place, including California, Connecticut and Maryland; the most recent state to adopt such a law is Hawaii, which did so in 2006.

“Pretty much all of the energy, all of the momentum, has been to restrict abortion, which makes what could potentially happen in New York so interesting,” said Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager at the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. “There’s no other state that’s even contemplating this right now.”

In most statehouses, the push by lawmakers has been in the opposite direction. The past two years has seen more provisions adopted at the state level to restrict abortion rights than in any two-year period in decades, according to the Guttmacher Institute; last year, 19 states adopted 43 new provisions restricting abortion access, while not a single significant measure was adopted to expand access to abortion or to comprehensive sex education.

“It’s an extraordinary moment in terms of the degree to which there is government interference in a woman’s ability to make these basic health care decisions,” said Andrea Miller, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice New York. “For New York to be able to send a signal, a hopeful sign, a sense of the turning of the tide, we think is really important.”

Abortion rights advocates say that even though the Roe decision supersedes state law, some doctors are hesitant to perform late-term abortions when a woman’s health is at risk because the criminal statutes remain on the books.

“Doctors and hospitals shouldn’t be reading criminal laws to determine what types of health services they can offer and provide to their patients,” said M. Tracey Brooks, the president of Family Planning Advocates of New York State.

For Mr. Cuomo, the debate over passing a new abortion law presents an opportunity to appeal to women as well as to liberals, who have sought action in Albany without success since Eliot Spitzer made a similar proposal when he was governor. But it also poses a challenge to the coalition of Republicans and a few Democrats that controls the State Senate, the chamber that has in the past stood as the primary obstacle to passing abortion legislation in the capital.

The governor has said that his Reproductive Health Act would be one plank of a 10-part Women’s Equality Act that also would include equal pay and anti-discrimination provisions. Conservative groups, still stinging from the willingness of Republican lawmakers to go along with Mr. Cuomo’s push to legalize same-sex marriage in 2011, are mobilizing against the proposal. Seven thousand New Yorkers who oppose the measure have sent messages to Mr. Cuomo and legislators via the Web site of the New York State Catholic Conference.

A number of anti-abortion groups have also formed a coalition called New Yorkers for Life, which is seeking to rally opposition to the governor’s proposal using social media.

“If you ask anyone on the street, ‘Is there enough abortion in New York?’ no one in their right mind would say we need more abortion,” said the Rev. Jason J. McGuire, the executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, which is part of the coalition.

Members of both parties say that the issue of reproductive rights was a significant one in November’s legislative elections. Democrats, who were bolstered by an independent expenditure campaign by NARAL, credit their victories in several key Senate races in part to their pledge to fight for legislation similar to what Mr. Cuomo is planning to propose.

Republicans, who make up most of the coalition that controls the Senate, have generally opposed new abortion rights measures. Speaking with reporters recently, the leader of the Republicans, Dean G. Skelos of Long Island, strenuously objected to rewriting the state’s abortion laws, especially in a manner similar to what the governor is seeking.

“You could have an abortion up until the day the child would be born, and I think that’s just wrong,” Mr. Skelos said. He suggested that the entire debate was unnecessary, noting that abortion is legal in New York State and saying that is “not going to be changed.”

The Senate Democratic leader, Andrea Stewart-Cousins of Yonkers, who is the sponsor of a bill that is similar to the legislation the governor is drafting, said she was optimistic that an abortion measure would reach the Senate floor this year.

“New York State’s abortion laws were passed in 1970 in a bipartisan fashion,” she said. “It would be a sad commentary that over 40 years later we could not manage to do the same thing.”

Read More..

Rem Vyakhirev, Former Chief of Gazprom, Dies at 78

MOSCOW — Rem I. Vyakhirev, who as chief executive of the huge Russian energy company Gazprom during the 1990s resisted efforts by reformers to break up and privatize it, only to end his tenure a billionaire owning valuable pieces of the company himself, died on Feb. 11. He was 78.

His death was confirmed by a Gazprom spokesman, who did not provide the cause or place of death.

Early in the post-Soviet period, Mr. Vyakhirev seized on the possibilities of exploiting the sheer power and scale of the Russian natural gas industry — both for the government and for private enrichment.

His career spanned the transformation of what had been the Soviet ministry of gas into the world’s largest natural gas company. By the time he left Gazprom, in 2001, forced out in a din of criticism over missing assets, Forbes magazine estimated his net worth at $1.5 billion.

All along, though, Mr. Vyakhirev, reflecting a strange cognitive dissonance that characterized his career, espoused the benefits of state ownership of natural gas fields and pipelines. Gazprom, which is controlled by the Russian government but is 50 percent owned by private investors, remained whole while the Russian oil industry was split up and sold piecemeal. The company supplies about a quarter of all gas consumed in Europe today.

“The gas industry should be in one pair of hands, in state hands,” Mr. Vyakhirev said in September in an interview with the Russian edition of Forbes. “There’s all this talk about gas being an addiction, how to get off the gas needle. That’s ridiculous. Gas is a wet nurse, not a needle.”

Rem Ivanovich Vyakhirev was born on Aug. 23, 1934, in a village in the Samara region of southern Russia. His given name is an acronym evoking socialist progress: Revolution, Engels and Marx.

By the late 1980s, he had risen to deputy minister of gas in the Soviet Union. He assumed control of Gazprom in 1992, when his patron, the former minister of gas, Viktor S. Chernomyrdon, was appointed prime minister under President Boris N. Yeltsin.

Mr. Vyakhirev and a tight group of associates held sway over Gazprom’s assets, including whole towns in Siberia. The company became an island of the old Soviet system in the new Russia, known as the state within the state, a paternalistic monopoly with tens of thousands of coddled employees.

The company’s staggering wealth and size made Mr. Vyakhirev one of Russia’s most powerful men. He was able to shrug off efforts by the tax ministry to collect billions in arrears from the company in the mid-1990s. He also aided the state by informally ladling out funds from the corporate budget.

Yevgeny Yasin, the minister of economy at the time, recalled Mr. Vyakhirev’s eagerness to help the government on such projects as rebuilding a cathedral in Moscow.

“He always helped,” Mr. Yasin said, as quoted by Public Post, a news Web site. “Gazprom was a second budget, in fact an ‘extra pocket’ for the government, to be used during especially difficult situations.”

All the while, beginning with a quiet deal soon after the company’s founding that allowed company executives to buy up to 30 percent of Gazprom shares at auctions they controlled, pieces of Gazprom slipped away to nonstate entities.

Public documents and financial records later showed that some assets went to Mr. Vyakhirev and members of his family, a sign of the rough and loose ways of early Russian capitalism. One deal, for example, transferred about $185 million worth of gas fields to Sibneftegaz, a subsidiary partly owned by Mr. Vyakhirev’s relatives.

As pressure mounted to oust Mr. Vyakhirev, Boris Fyodorov, a former minister of finance, disclosed that tens of billions of dollars worth of gas sales from Russia to former Soviet countries like Ukraine went through Itera, a trading company based in Jacksonville, Fla., and partly owned by Gazprom managers.

President Vladimir V. Putin, in consolidating political control over Russia early in his first term, ousted Mr. Vyakhirev in 2001 by having government appointees on the board cancel his contract. Mr. Vyakhirev stayed on as chairman for a year. The new director, Aleksey B. Miller, then set about unraveling the old management’s insider deals.

Gazprom’s stock rallied for a time before the global recession, but has been in a swoon for years. The company is losing market share in Europe because of price pressure from the gas industry in the United States.

Mr. Vyakhirev’s survivors include a son, Yuri, and a daughter, Tatyana Vyakhireva.

In the Forbes interview last year, Mr. Vyakhirev said he had taken up hobby farming in retirement. “I never wanted to be the head of a company,” he said. “But why refuse if the entire business is in your hands? If you give it to somebody, they would either drink it away or lose it.”

Read More..