Posts Tagged ‘ftc’

Market Manipulation, What Does the Law Say?

January 31st, 2019 Comments off



Manipulation is intentional conduct designed to deceive investors by controlling or artificially affecting the market for a security,” says the SEC website.


Market manipulation. Market manipulation is a type of market abuse where there is a deliberate attempt to interfere with the free and fair operation of the market and create artificial, false or misleading appearances with respect to the price of, or market for, a product, security, commodity or currency,” states Wikipedia, which cites their sources.

Manipulation is illegal in most cases, but it can be difficult for regulators and other authorities to detect. … It is much easier to manipulate the share price of smaller companies, such as penny stocks, because they are not as closely watched by analysts and other market participants as the medium and large cap firms,” said Investopedia on Nov 10, 2017.

Equity Master said, “Stock market operators are market participants who form a syndicate to manipulate stock prices for personal gain. … Through a coordinated act, the operators rig stock prices higher or lower, creating a frenzy or panic for a certain stock. Seeing the rapid stock price movements, traders flock in and perpetuate the trend.”

But there are other forms of market manipulation, that may or may not have anything to do with stocks and equities trading.

Consider the issue of boycotting. Here’s what the FTC says.

Group Boycotts

Any company may, on its own, refuse to do business with another firm, but an agreement among competitors not to do business with targeted individuals or businesses may be an illegal boycott, especially if the group of competitors working together has market power.”

Are there objective reasons to believe that such activity(ies) have been introduced in the manufactured housing industry?

There are published reasons – from third-parties to MHProNews – that suggest that a reasonable answer to that query is ‘yes.’

The FTC also successfully challenged the group boycott of an association…” in a case upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, involving competing trial attorneys.

Boycotts to prevent a firm from entering a market or to disadvantage an existing competitor are also illegal,” says the FTC.

The arguably pro-MHI source publicly calling for a boycott itself claimed to include an MHI affiliate, for details and evidence, see the link here and see the related download, etc..  Is it poetic or jocular that this sort of persona would be selected by MHI to be their surrogate in a call for their ‘boycott?’

More recently, without a legal explanation, competing publishers were given preferential treatment at the Louisville Manufactured Housing Show, which included special treatment of the source that publicly called for an organized boycott.

The parties involved in that decision to play favorites at Louisville event have clear ties to MHI, as they include those that MHI themselves have termed their “affiliates” and/or are MHI members.

MHI leaders were advised of the matter.  At this point, the Daily Business News on MHProNews is not aware of any public action taken to stop the purportedly abusive practices.

These matters will take time to sort out.  As with other items, patience and persistence are required. But it is worth considering what MHI themselves have said in their antitrust guidelines.




That’s MH “Industry News, Tips, and Views Pros Can Use,” © where “We Provide, You Decide.” © ## (News, analysis, and commentary.)



To report a news tip, click the image above or send an email to – To help us spot your message in our volume of email, please put the words NEWS TIP in the subject line.

NOTICE: You can get our ‘read-hot’ industry-leading emailed headline news updates, at this link here. You can join the scores who follow us on Twitter at this link. Connect on LinkedIn here.

NOTICE 2: Readers have periodically reported that they are getting a better experience when reading MHProNews on the Microsoft Edge, or Apple Safari browser than with Google’s Chrome browser. Chrome reportedly manipulates the content of a page more than the other two.

(Related Reports are further below. Third-party images and content are provided under fair use guidelines.)

1) To sign up in seconds for our MH Industry leading emailed news updates, click here.


To see a sample of our emailed news update, click here. To sign up for the factory-built home industry’s #1 headline news, click here or the graphic above.

2) To pro-vide a News Tips and/or Commentary, click the link to the left. Please note if comments are on-or-off the record, thank you.

3) Marketing, Web, Video, Consulting, Recruiting and Training Re-sources

SoheylaKovachDailyBusinessNewsMHProNewsMHLivingNewsSubmitted by Soheyla Kovach to the Daily Business News for Soheyla is a managing member of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC, the parent company to MHProNews, and


Related Reports:

You can click on the image/text boxes to learn more about that topic.

Midwest Manufactured Housing Federation Official Louisville Show Communique to MHProNews

NPR Targets Manufactured Home Communities, Including Sun, RV Horizons, Frank Rolfe, Buffett-Berkshire Hathaway Related Details


Remember-Anything You, Richard ‘Dick’ Jennison, Kevin Clayton, Tim Williams, or Anyone Says Publicly at Louisville Show May Be Recorded by Audio, Video – Legal Details

Manufactured Housing Institute’s Three Stooges? SECO ‘Leaders’ George F. Allen, Spencer Roane, Tom Lackey and ‘Rent to Own’ Scams?

“The Illusion of Motion Versus Real-World Challenges”

MHARR Releases Study Recommending Independent Collective Representation for Post-Production Sector










Lawsuits for Triple Damages – Anti-Trust, Anti-Monopoly Law, Manufactured Housing, and You

January 4th, 2018 Comments off


The Clayton Act also authorizes private parties to sue for triple damages when they have been harmed by conduct that violates either the Sherman or Clayton Act and to obtain a court order prohibiting the anticompetitive practice in the future,” says the Federal Trade Commission website page, further linked below.

Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions where the effect “may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly,” per the same federal facts page.


The Sherman Act outlaws “every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade,” and any “monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.””

Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws.”

On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal.”

These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are “per se” violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed,” their overview page states.

The quotes above are highlights from the FTC text below, which is shared verbatim as follows for their complete context.

Note that after this section, there will be additional comments and links to information for those impacted or researching this high-profile topic.

The Antitrust Laws, Per the FTC

FederalTradeCommisionWikipediaDailyBusinessNewsMHProNews“Congress passed the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, in 1890 as a “comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade.” In 1914, Congress passed two additional antitrust laws: the Federal Trade Commission Act, which created the FTC, and the Clayton Act. With some revisions, these are the three core federal antitrust laws still in effect today.

The antitrust laws proscribe unlawful mergers and business practices in general terms, leaving courts to decide which ones are illegal based on the facts of each case. Courts have applied the antitrust laws to changing markets, from a time of horse and buggies to the present digital age. Yet for over 100 years, the antitrust laws have had the same basic objective: to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up.

Here is an overview of the three core federal antitrust laws.

The Sherman Act outlaws “every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade,” and any “monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.” Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are “per se” violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed.

The penalties for violating the Sherman Act can be severe. Although most enforcement actions are civil, the Sherman Act is also a criminal law, and individuals and businesses that violate it may be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Criminal prosecutions are typically limited to intentional and clear violations such as when competitors fix prices or rig bids. The Sherman Act imposes criminal penalties of up to $100 million for a corporation and $1 million for an individual, along with up to 10 years in prison. Under federal law, the maximum fine may be increased to twice the amount the conspirators gained from the illegal acts or twice the money lost by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is over $100 million.

The Federal Trade Commission Act bans “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” The Supreme Court has said that all violations of the Sherman Act also violate the FTC Act. Thus, although the FTC does not technically enforce the Sherman Act, it can bring cases under the FTC Act against the same kinds of activities that violate the Sherman Act. The FTC Act also reaches other practices that harm competition, but that may not fit neatly into categories of conduct formally prohibited by the Sherman Act. Only the FTC brings cases under the FTC Act.

The Clayton Act addresses specific practices that the Sherman Act does not clearly prohibit, such as mergers and interlocking directorates (that is, the same person making business decisions for competing companies). Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions where the effect “may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.” As amended by the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, the Clayton Act also bans certain discriminatory prices, services, and allowances in dealings between merchants. The Clayton Act was amended again in 1976 by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act to require companies planning large mergers or acquisitions to notify the government of their plans in advance. The Clayton Act also authorizes private parties to sue for triple damages when they have been harmed by conduct that violates either the Sherman or Clayton Act and to obtain a court order prohibiting the anticompetitive practice in the future.

In addition to these federal statutes, most states have antitrust laws that are enforced by state attorneys general or private plaintiffs. Many of these statutes are based on the federal antitrust laws.”

The above is quoted verbatim from the page, linked below.



Anti-Trust (Anti-Monopoly) Laws, Manufactured Housing, and You

During an affordable housing crisis, how is it possible that manufactured housing is doing so poorly?


At the time Belsky made this prediction, manufactured homes were selling over 250,000 new units per year. This year, MH won’t reach 40,000 of that total. What happened?

NAR’s Yun – No Quick Fixes Spell$ Manufactured Housing Opportunitie$

Was it a series of mishaps?  Or what is part of a plan, to allow the regulatory state to be used to crush many, so that those who built “the moat” could benefit?

ELS’ Sam Zell – Compliance Costs Destroys Smaller Businesses = Consolidation

Antitrust, or anti-monopoly laws exist, as the FTC said, because it harms businesses and consumers alike.

Warren Buffett, “the Moat,” Manufactured Housing, Berkshire Hathaway, Clayton Homes, 21st Mortgage, Vanderbilt, Wells Fargo, NAI…

Are there reasons to think to think this may apply to manufactured housing?

That’s for a court to decide, and for attorneys who contemplate such a case to consider, and argue. That said, consider this.

Manufactured Housing Institute VP Revealed Important Truths on MHI’s Lobbying, Agenda

As the Daily Business News has previously reported, there have been thousands of companies that have closed or were acquired in the manufactured housing industry by larger operations. Was this the result of a plan, part of the moat strategy, of Warren Buffett led Berkshire Hathaway, as it applies to the manufactured housing industry?

Killing Off 100s of Independent Manufactured Home Retailers, Production Companies – Tim Williams/21st Mortgage “Smoking Gun” Document 2

There are certainly Democratic lawmakers who have raised this issue, and others, who have specifically called Clayton Homes and their Berkshire Hathaway sister companies of 21st Mortgage and Vanderbilt Mortgage, a ‘near monopoly.’

Maxine Waters Statement, Preserving Access Manufactured Housing Act 2017, Warren Buffett, Clayton Homes

As MHProNews began reporting for almost a year, there are also those within the ranks of the industry, who have called out MHI – widely seen within and outside of the industry as dominated by Berkshire Hathaway – as a tool of Warren Buffett led brands.


Not because these reports are among the most read articles,
but because there are voices within and outside of MH that say that this matters,
and because readers thank MHProNews for “having the guts” to cover it on behalf of the independents and consumers – who allegedly have been, are being, or will be harmed – we’ve taken this issue on.

Duty To Serve, “Complete Waste of Time” per Tim Williams, CEO/21st Mortgage; POTUS Trump, Warren Buffett Insight$

Allegations like those noted in or linked from this article have been carefully examined, per sources to MHProNews, from within Berkshire Hathaway owned brands and from MHI.

Given that MHProNews has invited replies we would publish, why have they not done so?

Given the fact that MHProNews’ publisher has invited a public debate MHI performance and related issues, why hasn’t Gooch, their attorney Rick Robinson (who as an attorney, is essentially trained in debating), or Richard “Dick” Jennison taken up the invitation?  Such a debate could be done via a recorded video, so that the entire industry could see it.

Why has MHI ducked out on that? Why didn’t MHI’s communication professional, Patti Boerger, join the panel discussion on “engaging the media” she was invited to at Tunica in 2017?

Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) SVP Rick Robinson Ducks Serious Industry Questions in Deadwood

Such reporting is only possible because some have provided their keen insights, documents, insider information, or who have otherwise made these concerns and controversies publication possible.

“Perverse”–Warren Buffett-Dodd-Frank, CFPB, Manufactured Housing, Loans, Independent Businesses Fact Check$

When Doug Ryan at CFED (rebranded as Prosperity Now) leveled the charge of monopoly, MHI’s Lesli Gooch was quick to publicly reply.  Frankly, Ryan’s framing of the issue wasn’t the strongest, and Gooch’s reply was thus made easy.


While MHI’s SVP Lesli Gooch has denied the charge, Doug Ryan at CFED, and long time MHI member, George Allen, are among those who’ve raised the issue of monopolistic practices by MHI. Soheyla Kovach approaches this from a fresh and unique perspective, as her report and analysis linked below proves.

But after months of invitations to MHI – including Ms. Gooch – other staff, and their executive committee members, MHI stopped replying to these concerns roughly a year ago.  They have also expressed refused to take questions in public.

In what might be seen as a type of ‘replies,’

  • an MHI contracted outside attorney,
  • surrogates of theirs,
  • an apparently anonymous package that delivered a threat via U.S. mail (which can be a federal crime = FYI, we called that ‘bluff’ and nothing happened),
  • have all threatened the publisher ofMHProNews. We called their bluffs.

Extortion? RICO? Allegedly Illegal, and Dirty Side of Manufactured Housing, Exposed

  • They’ve arguably played games to harm us, but no legal action.

Note, these threats don’t deny what we’ve published. They are nibbles at the edges, not a denial. Last but not least, MHI sent an anonymous, unsigned letter, removing MHProNews as a member, under the pretense that they had no category for a news source in their association.

That’s demonstrably a ruse, but for reasons that will become clear in the days ahead, they would not give any of the documents requested that preceded that membership cancellation letter.

MHProNews is not alone as being singled out for a win-lose type of proposition. But all of this begs the question, what are they hiding?  Why are they hiding it?

“Accurate, but Misleading” MHI Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act Alert – ‘Weaponized New$,’ Fact Check$

We hear from Congressional sources that investigations are underway.

We know from other sources that media and third parties are tracking these developments, and taking an interest.

Is there an anti-trust (anti-monopoly), case to be made?

MHARR vs. MHI on DOE Energy Rule, Pushback Pay$ Off?

Are there hundreds, perhaps thousands of manufactured home business that have been harmed by “the moat” and MHI’s arguably poor performance?

Has MHI begun ‘promotion’ (note, that favors a Berkshire Hathaway brand, a company that relies on Berkshire Hathaway product, and a company that is led by a former Clayton division executive) to duck the growing pressure to ‘do something’ demanded by this publication and numerous industry leaders, including MHI members?

Terry Decio, Skyline Homes, “The Secret” – The Rest of the Story

If MHI et al are serious about facts and defending the industry, why haven’t they corrected the documented cases of factual errors MHProNews has spotlighted, which have been disputes that arose from MHI’s own members?


Warren Buffett, right, credit Wikipedia. Tim Williams, right, credit, LinkedIn. Collage credit, MHProNews. Click above.

If MHI et al are serious about facts and defending the industry, why don’t they respond to each and every flawed media report, as was once floated as part of their reason for hiring Boerger in the first place?

Do you or someone you know have a case or claim against MHI, Berkshire Hathaway?

Triple damages may await those willing to jump into that fray.

We Provide, You Decide.” ## (News, review, commentary, analysis).

TwitterFacebookLinkedInNew Year’s Resolution: On this 11th day of Christmas, a request.

This writer already has one of the largest LinkedIn followings in the manufactured home industry. But we’ve frankly not asked for Twitter, or Facebook followers. That changes, starting today. If you want to keep up with posts relevant to the industry, you can connect via the links below. @LATonyKovach



Click the image above to sign up for the MH Industry’s #1 Emailed Headline News Updates. Click only the stories YOU want to read.

Note 1: Thousands do it. You, your team, and industry colleagues can sign up to the MH Industry leading headline news/updates – typically sent twice weekly – please click here to sign up in just seconds.

Note 2: For media, business development, training, or other professional services, click here. The more pros like you that use our services over any others, the more we can protect, educate, and promote the Manufactured Housing Revolution.

(Image credits are as shown above, and when provided by third parties, are shared under fair use guidelines.)


We agree with Warren Buffett on the value of the lessons of history, reading and research. Without those deep insights, the wool can be pulled over other people’s eyes.

By L. A. “Tony” Kovach.

Kovach is the award-winning managing-member of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC,
parent to MHProNews, and
Both are #1 in their categories.

Kovach is one of the most endorsed and recommended MH industry professionals in all of manufactured housing.

National Law Review report Reveals insights on CFPB Plans for Enforcement

November 12th, 2014 Comments off

CFPB_2tone_logo-posted-daily-business-news-mhpronews-com-At a recent IAPP (International Association of Privacy Professionals) privacy event, officials from the FTC and CFPB offered insight into their respective agencies’ future enforcement plans,” National Law  review told MHProNews.


CFPB Senior Counsel Pavneet Singh summarized the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) enforcement powers, and gave insights on what to expect from the agency’s plans for enforcement.

Singh said the CFPB’s enforcement jurisdiction, similar to the FTC’s Section 5 power, covered unfair and deceptive acts or practices. S added that the FTC’s actions,generally inform the Bureau’s views on unfairness and deception.”

This comes on the heels of an announced $10 million dollars in fines on October 24th by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against two telecommunications carriers on October 24 for allegedly failing to protect customer data.  

Singh elaborated, saying the Bureau “look[s] for violations of consumer financial laws through enforcement and examination, and a lot of what priorities are made is based on what we find.

The potentially chilling nature of this announcement on lenders of more modest size should be noted, including those involved in captive finance operations, community lending or manufactured housing. ##

(Image Credit: CFPB Logo)

Fair Credit Reporting Act—New for 2013

November 9th, 2012 Comments off

MHProNews has learned effective Jan. 2013 the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) will assume authority of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) as it moves out of the Federal Trade Commission. The CFPB issued new regulations that delineate the form governing the conducting of a credit check by a prospective employer. For the new version, click here. For the current version under the FTC, please click here.

Image credit: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau)

Turned down by a Bank? Try Craiglist

November 8th, 2012 Comments off

NNMoney reports the latest twist on Craigslist is people looking for co-signers on loans because they do not have good enough credit on their own. A would be borrower in Ohio is offering a tractor and a car as collateral for someone to co-sign a $5,000 personal loan. A student in New Jersey who offered $2,000 to anyone who will loan him $8,000 received numerous responses from scammers, and even paid a matchmaking service to hook him up with someone who would help, but to no avail. While borrowers can easily lose their payment and/or their credit identity, the risk is greater for the lender who may lose their identity, their money, and if the lender defaults, may be on the hook for collection fees, garnishment of wages, and a black mark on their own credit score. John Ulzheimer of SmartCredit says, “You’re co-signing for someone a bank has already identified as someone who doesn’t deserve the loan.” As MHProNews has learned, according to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), three out of four co-signers are asked to repay loans that have defaulted. A signed agreement between the borrower and lender disavowing the responsibility of the lender will not deter the bank from going after the co-signer.

(Image credit: TotalMortgage)

FTC to Enforce Red Flags Rule December 31

December 20th, 2010 Comments off

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will begin enforcement of the Red Flags Rule on December 31, 2010.  The FTC issued regulations (the Red Flags Rule) on November 9, 2007 requiring financial institutions and creditors to develop and implement written identity theft prevention programs as part of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions (FACT) Act of 2003. In addition, the rule implements Section 315 of the FACT Act, which applies to users of credit reports. This section specifically includes “landlords” or land-lease communities, and requires users of consumer reports from credit bureaus to develop reasonable policies and procedures to determine the identity of an applicant when a “notice of address discrepancy” from a consumer reporting agency is received. More information is available from the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) at See also Ken Rishel’s November Feature Article,