ShareThis Page
LeNature’s warning |

LeNature’s warning

| Sunday, March 30, 2008 12:00 a.m

LeNature’s Inc. and its rapid descent into ruin two years ago offered a grim and telling omen for business forecasters wise enough to recognize it.

That is, the fiscal tsunami that slammed LeNature’s into bankruptcy — an unforgiving force churned by flimsy credit and easy money — would inevitably flatten similar business plans banked on nothing more substantial than worthless paper and false promises.

Witness the amended lawsuit filed by investors against the Latrobe beverage maker and Wachovia Bank. It’s alleged LeNature’s executives Gregory Podlucky and Robert Lynn, along with Wachovia officials, pitched the company’s astounding growth based on nothing more substantial than grossly inflated sales figures; that for three years positive audits allowed LeNature’s to borrow heavily while it advanced toward bankruptcy.

Hedge fund officials on the hook for $275 million allege a pattern of racketeering by LeNature’s executives and Wachovia. They’re seeking damages that could reach $1 billion. Wachovia says it was “a victim of fraud.”

Could Mr. Podlucky’s machinations been uncovered by more careful scrutiny• Or were his investors, similar to today’s troubled subprimers, not concerned with the nitty-gritty details?

If so, they have themselves to blame.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.