METHUSELAH ARCHIVE SOURCES / TIME-HADACOL-HANGOVER-1951

High Finance: Hadacol Hangover

news article · 1951
type:news article
year:1951
citation:"High Finance: Hadacol Hangover." Time, October 15, 1951.
LINK
https://time.com/archive/6617879/high-finance-hadacol-hangover/
SUMMARY
Time magazine's contemporaneous report on the October 1951 collapse of the LeBlanc Corporation, filed weeks after Dudley LeBlanc sold his ownership interest in Hadacol to a group of Manhattan investors. Fetched directly at the cited URL (Time's own archive). Reports: the buyers had paid LeBlanc $250,000 down for the company against a price previously announced at $1,100,000, a figure that diverges sharply from the $8.2 million and $8 million figures the case's other two sources separately report; the buyers found a $1.8 million second-quarter loss where LeBlanc had previously reported a $3.6 million profit over the prior 15 months; accuses LeBlanc of concealing roughly $2 million in unpaid bills and $656,151 in federal tax debt, and of listing $2,272,000 in "accounts receivable" that largely did not exist; states the Federal Trade Commission had challenged Hadacol's marketing claims as "false, misleading and deceptive"; describes Hadacol itself as comparable to a vitamin-enriched cocktail; and reports a federal court appointed a trustee for the purchasers' financial reorganization. This is the case's primary contemporaneous professional/press source for the disconfirmation record, satisfying the Historical Evidence Proportionality standard (a contemporaneous national-magazine assessment of the marketed claims and the company's collapse).
NOTES

Time’s October 15, 1951 report is the case’s principal contemporaneous source for both the financial collapse of the LeBlanc Corporation and the FTC’s own characterization of Hadacol’s marketing claims. It was filed weeks after the reported sale of the company, once the new owners had discovered the state of the company’s finances, and it is cited in the case body for the FTC’s “false, misleading and deceptive” characterization of Hadacol’s marketing, the buyers’ accusation that LeBlanc concealed liabilities, the trusteeship, and its own distinct account of the sale price ($250,000 down against a previously announced $1,100,000), which conflicts substantially with the other two sources’ figures and is reported in the case as a disclosed three-way source conflict rather than resolved in favor of any one figure. Facts drawn from this source are reported in the case in indirect style rather than as a mechanically verified verbatim quotation block, since the page was read via a summarizing fetch tool rather than raw HTML.