The Koppers is the largest manufacture of chocolate. Koppers produce 450 different kind of chocolate. Koppers started in 1937. It was started by two mans. One of them was David Kopper. When the company started they only produced chocolate lentils which are small chocolate pills with bright color  shine.  Koppers is actually quite famous for original production. They invented chocolate to presso  40 years ago. They produce gummy bears which are really sweet. Every product is special in the store. They were boutique company, they had about 50 employees but they made a big profit about 10-15 millions dollar so the business started to growth. Michal P. 

Real life of Willy Wonka

     Jeff Alexanders introduces a Koppers chocolate company. It is in fact a largest chocolate manufacture as he said perhaps the last on Manhattan . Koppers produces 450 different kinds of chocolate dragees and with these outputs they are one of the largest choco-manufacturers in the world.
     History of this company started in 1937 when  it was founded by "two gentlemans“ Jeffs grandfather and his companion David Kopper who retired early after starting the company. He said the name Koppers originated from the letter K which settled really strong and it would be successful. When the company started they were the only manufacture in the country which made ,,chocolate lentils“. Nowadays maybe followers of m&m‘s should know how sweet are these lentils. Koppers are actually quite famous for originating the pen chocolates that people are enjoying today. They invented chocolate covered gummy bears whose are also very sweet and became very popular.
     Koppers are boutique company they have about 50 employees and their sells are in 10 to 15 milion dollar range. They are very comfortable in that way and there is a posibility of growth in this business.

Juraj P.

TRANSCRIPT: The man running the biggest American automaker spoke with Fortune's Adam Lashinsky in a wide-ranging interview covering the company's biggest challenges.

Read the transcript and check what you wrote about it:

The man running the biggest American automaker spoke with Fortune's Adam Lashinsky in a wide-ranging interview covering the company's biggest challenges.

FORTUNE -- Daniel Akerson is every inch the businessman. In fact, he uses that word to describe himself, as if he needs to remind listeners that the man running a company so prominently saved by the U.S. taxpayers comes from the world of commerce. After a career in telecommunications and private equity, Akerson is an unlikely chief executive of General Motors. Famously at this point, he is not what Detroiters call a "car guy." He's also a Republican, thrust into the position of defending a Democratic president's passions for an electric car and the salvation of the U.S. auto industry. (He claims to have spoken to the president twice since becoming GM's CEO in September, 2010.)

Akerson visited the West Coast recently and sat down for an on-camera chat with Fortune's Adam Lashinsky on March 7 in San Francisco. He defends the "bailout" of the car companies as articulately, or more so, than any politician. He also acknowledges that GM needs to close factories in Europe, though he explains why it would be tough to kill the Opel brand in Germany, despite the successful if painful termination of historic U.S. brands, including Oldsmobile and Pontiac. Akerson seems downright befuddled—and clearly frustrated—by the politicization of the Chevy Volt, a project started at GM well before President Obama ran for office. He claims to have no idea when the United States will sell its sizeable stake in GM, and he thinks it makes all the sense in the world that the citizenry of the nation shouldn't be represented on the GM board of directors despite owning more than a fourth of the company. These are just some of the topics covered in a wide-ranging conversation, an extremely lightly edited transcript of which appears below.

ADAM LASHINSKY: So, I'd like to start if you could clear up something in my mind that I assume confuses a lot of people out there as well, which is this business of the U.S. government's investment in General Motors. The government owns about 32% of General Motors. That's common stock as I understand it, but that's often characterized as a loan that needs to be repaid to the U.S. government. Can you explain the right lingo to me on that, please?

DANIEL AKERSON: Well, I mean, you're a pretty smart, financial savvy guy. There was debt, there was preferred, and there was common stock that the government owns. And we've paid back all of our debt, we've repaid all of our preferred, and we sold down from 60 plus, 62%, on a fully diluted basis they actually owned 27% of the company, and all of that was remitted to the government. That total is just around 23, $24 billion has been returned.

So, do we owe them in the sense of debt? They're a shareholder now. In fact, they're our largest shareholder, and they have the ability, at their call not ours, to sell that stock at any one point in time. So, there's nothing owed in the sense of there's equity that they own, which is not debt.

ADAM LASHINSKY: So, by your characterization it's the government's call more than it's General Motors' call when the government will end its ownership in General Motors.

DANIEL AKERSON: Clearly. We have large shareholders. We have 200,000 plus. We have a marquis listing of first tier, bold bracket pension funds and whatnot and mutual funds. The government is a large shareholder. They're not in the boardroom, they don't have representation in the boardroom.

ADAM LASHINSKY: Why not, by the way? Excuse me, wouldn't it make sense for such a large shareholder, almost a third of the shares, to have representation?

DANIEL AKERSON: Well, I think that's a question better asked of the government, but I think what they wanted, I don't know anything about politics or the management of a national economy, and I think they, in my opinion, wisely said, let's get -- they brought in a new board after the bankruptcy, reconstituted the board with old directors, if you will directors that were there prior to the bankruptcy. I came in with that new group, and they said, okay. I think they would have had trouble getting business executives to come in and say, is the government going to manage this business or are we going to have businesspeople manage the business.

ADAM LASHINSKY: Can you explain to me what level of interaction there is? There's no formal board representation. Is there a monthly interaction, is there someone minding the store from their perspective, in other words, formally?

DANIEL AKERSON: No, no. Remember, I have a fiduciary responsibility, the board has fiduciary responsibility to all of our shareholders regardless if they own a thousand shares or a million shares. And once we took it public, we have certain restrictions, FTC restrictions; do we unfairly disclose information to one shareholder regardless if they have 27% of the company or 1%, and the answer is no.

Prior to us going public, reentering the public market, yes, they got monthly reports and looked at our financials, and we had shareholder meetings before it went public, and they'd show up and they'd vote for or against various directors and various proposals that were before these shareholders, of which there were four at the time. The Canadian government also put money into the company at the time of the bankruptcy.

ADAM LASHINSKY: So, two last things on this. One is, do you have a sense of what the government's timeline is?

DANIEL AKERSON: No.

ADAM LASHINSKY: And how often do you communicate with the president? Because this is a very important investment for the U.S. government.

DANIEL AKERSON: Well, I think I've spoken to the president twice.

ADAM LASHINSKY: You mean since you became CEO?

DANIEL AKERSON: Yes, yes. And he visited one of our Detroit area plants with the president of Korea when the free trade agreement was signed between the United States and South Korea.

But I think the president is a supporter of the company, obviously, as was the Bush administration. But objectively, candidly, they don't involve themselves in the day-to-day running of the business.

A wonderland of chocolate

Listen to Jeff Alexanders talking about a chocolate company Koppers and write down the brief summary (100 to 150 words)

http://www.ceo.com/flink/?lnk=http%3A%2F%2Ffeatures.blogs.fortune.cnn.com%2F2012%2F03%2F15%2Fakerson%2F&id=273372

This video was about interview between Adam Lashinsky and Dan Akerson who work in General Motors. The Us government investment has 32% stoks in general motors. The US government paid back all of the debt,sold out 62% of the company to the government and 23 bilions has been returned. GM had large shareholders and the governments is too big shareholders, they dont have representative in boardroom. The board has responsibility to all of their shareholders. General motor is important investmen for US government so Dan Akerson has spoken to president twice since he became CEO, the president visited detroit  area plan, the president is supporter of the company obviously. Michal.P

This video presents ceo of general motors Dan Akerson, who is asked questions by Adam Lashinsky.The main issue is government versus general motors.Dan Akerson  is explaining the connection between them. Mostly the existence of share-holding, and saying that the government does not have represenattion in these general motors, even though having the 32 % of owning there. In the end he is saying that he doesnt have the sense of time-line of government and that he met american president twice by now and he visited on of their Detroit area with the president of Korea. The president is supporter of the company, but the government don´t interfere with business operations.

                                                                                                                     Marek. N