|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 3, 2015 17:04:56 GMT -5
Better hope you didn't have any of their floors in your house. Turns out they've been importing cheap Chinese made crap (and, really, is there any other kind of Chinese product?) that contains a lot more formaldehyde than is healthy. As with Madoff, no one seemed interested in questioning how they managed fantastic profits and still undercut their competition. CEO Tom Sullivan claims there's a conspiracy of investors trying to profit from shorting his stock. That's his explanation. Prediction: the company will eventually settled with the government, accepting a big fine. Part of that settlement will involve them not having to provide any details about what they knew. And no one will go to jail despite the fact that they knew, or should have known, that their product was dangerous. Article
|
|
|
Post by segram99 on Mar 3, 2015 17:09:02 GMT -5
I had hardwood floors installed in my dining room two years ago. I said something to my installer about going to LL's to save money. He said the flooring was cheap for a reason. I'm glad now I listened to him...
I watched the interview of their CEO the other night. The guy looked like a shyster. You could tell he was lying out his yazoo.
|
|
|
Post by com6063 on Mar 4, 2015 10:15:32 GMT -5
60 Minutes did a segment on this story on Sunday night. Look for their stock price to drop in the coming days.
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Mar 4, 2015 10:28:17 GMT -5
Was this for, primarily, the bamboo flooring products, or all the flooring? I only saw a little bit of the 60 minutes piece.
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Mar 4, 2015 13:06:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 4, 2015 14:10:49 GMT -5
Zhou got interested when he realized the company was sourcing products from China. And then he bought some of their product and paid to have it analyzed. With a knowledge of Chinese manufacturing history and a few dollars of his own money paid to a lab he discovered what Lumber Liquidators claims it did not know.
It isn't normal outgassing; the Chinese manufacturers have admitted to applying labels that made the product look like it met California code when they knew it did not.
I have to think that some class action litigator is hunting a client right now, and more power to him. The government will take no meaningful action, so it's up to a lawyer to deliver their deserved fate: to be sued out of existence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 7:41:06 GMT -5
Given that California laws tend to be a joke (ethernet cables seem to cause cancer only if you are in that state) I would like to know how the formaldehyde levels in the lumber rank against more widely accepted/common standards.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 5, 2015 10:58:24 GMT -5
Given that California laws tend to be a joke (ethernet cables seem to cause cancer only if you are in that state) I would like to know how the formaldehyde levels in the lumber rank against more widely accepted/common standards. I agree they tend to be cautious out there. But it's less about the fact that LL's product exceeded the levels than it is about the fact that LL knew this, or should have known it, and that the manufacturers certainly knew it - since they intentionally mislabeled their product.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 5, 2015 12:06:51 GMT -5
That didn't take long at all.Just as do vulture capitalists, this kind of action serves a purpose: it gets rid of bad actors like Lumber Liquidators.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 6, 2015 13:12:40 GMT -5
Given that California laws tend to be a joke (ethernet cables seem to cause cancer only if you are in that state) I would like to know how the formaldehyde levels in the lumber rank against more widely accepted/common standards. I agree they tend to be cautious out there. But it's less about the fact that LL's product exceeded the levels than it is about the fact that LL knew this, or should have known it, and that the manufacturers certainly knew it - since they intentionally mislabeled their product. "Cautious" is an understatement. When sand is claimed to cause cancer, you have gone over the cliff.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Mar 6, 2015 16:49:42 GMT -5
I would imagine sand dust in the lungs probably would cause cancer. Redleg.
So I would want to see what the criteria was before Id mock CA on that one.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 6, 2015 18:36:09 GMT -5
I would imagine sand dust in the lungs probably would cause cancer. Redleg. So I would want to see what the criteria was before Id mock CA on that one. It can cause silicosis, which is a potentially fatal lung disorder, that's for sure. Some folks don't want to see anything banned if there's some chance that will inconvenience a corporation somewhere. How about it, redleg? Should will still be making asbestos? After all, many people who worked with it did not develop mesothelioma! The case of formaldehyde is more straightforward: it is known to injure cells; this has been shown by experimentation. Not every victim of such cell damage will develop cancer as a result, but some will. Hence, rules about how much formaldehyde can be in manufactured goods. Rules Lumber Liquidators violated, whether knowingly or because they couldn't be bothered to test what they were receiving from their suppliers.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Mar 6, 2015 21:08:07 GMT -5
And if your suppliers are the Chinese you should test it twice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 21:23:22 GMT -5
Given that California laws tend to be a joke (ethernet cables seem to cause cancer only if you are in that state) I would like to know how the formaldehyde levels in the lumber rank against more widely accepted/common standards. I agree they tend to be cautious out there. But it's less about the fact that LL's product exceeded the levels than it is about the fact that LL knew this, or should have known it, and that the manufacturers certainly knew it - since they intentionally mislabeled their product. The key for me is how formaldehyde levels in Lumber Liquidators products compared to national or international safety standards. Not comparison to a state where someone could probably talk them into banning dihydrogen monoxide. This detail seems to be conveniently left out of the article.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 6, 2015 22:24:15 GMT -5
The key for me is how formaldehyde levels in Lumber Liquidators products compared to national or international safety standards. Not comparison to a state where someone could probably talk them into banning dihydrogen monoxide. This detail seems to be conveniently left out of the article. The key for me is that Lumber Liquidators knew the mandated levels. They also either knew their product exceeded those levels and lied about it, or they did not know. If they did not know, it's because they did not wish to know or they're incompetent. See where this is going? There's no scenario in which their behavior is acceptable. That's true regardless of whether California's levels are correctly set. If they had data proving California's levels are excessively cautious, they would most likely have used that to lobby for a relaxation of those standards. It may be that they'll produce such data as a civil trial defense, and if they have it, more power to them. But I will not hold my breath. What I expect is that the trial will conclude LL acted with indifference to the health of their customers. And if that's true, they do not deserve to be in business. I invite them to prove me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Mar 21, 2015 7:08:45 GMT -5
I agree they tend to be cautious out there. But it's less about the fact that LL's product exceeded the levels than it is about the fact that LL knew this, or should have known it, and that the manufacturers certainly knew it - since they intentionally mislabeled their product. The key for me is how formaldehyde levels in Lumber Liquidators products compared to national or international safety standards. Not comparison to a state where someone could probably talk them into banning dihydrogen monoxide. This detail seems to be conveniently left out of the article. This issue has been around for a long time! The evil chemical in question has become an essential part of manufacture in product all across America and the world. Does anyone in the modern world not have a home with plywood, particle board, OSB, carpeting, laminate flooring, furniture, etc.? www.nasdaq.com/article/lumber-liquidators-research-not-hyperbole-cm456875Was ALL product tested or just that from LL? Was the finished product tested, or just the deconstructed portion of the product?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Mar 21, 2015 9:40:28 GMT -5
Yeah, some folks who bought the stock when it bottomed are now "questioning" the test results: they're touts. They'll take profit when it ticks up a bit. The manufacturer admitted it mislabeled the product as California compliant. Therefore, LL either knew that or should have. Pick one: deliberate wrongdoing or staggering incompetence. Do you want a company with either attribute selling you a product that may outgas harmful fumes?
I saw a picture of an LL floor on the news and it looked like the floor equivalent of Wal-Mart furniture: maybe a little better than cardboard but not much.
|
|