Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/304337/US-Department-of-Justice-Antitrust-Case-Brief-01784-216122
Timestamp: 2016-12-06 09:25:57
Document Index: 247628916

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3571', '§ 2', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 3742', '§ 3742', '§ 1', '§ 3563', '§ 3013', '§3553', '§ 3553', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3571', '§ 5', '§ 3013', '§ 3553', '§ 6', '§ 3571', '§ 8', '§ 1621', '§ 1001', '§ 1503', '§ 1621', '§ 1001', '§ 1623', '§ 1503', '§ 401']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoin1 2 3 4 5 6NIALL E. LYNCH (CSBN 157959) LIDIA SPIROFF (CSBN 222253) SIDNEY A. MAJALYA (CSBN 205047) LARA M. KROOP (CSBN 239512) Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice 450 Golden Gate Avenue Box 36046, Room 10-0101 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 436-6660 Attorneys for the United States
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ) ) ) v. ) ) ) AKZO NOBEL CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL ) B.V. ) ) Defendant. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Case No. CR 06-0160 MMC UNITED STATES AND AKZO NOBEL’S JOINT SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
JOINT SENTENCING MEMORANDUM The United States of America and the defendant, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International B.V. (“Akzo Nobel”), file this Joint Sentencing Memorandum in support of their recommendation that the Court sentence the defendant to pay a criminal fine of $32 million. The parties also request that sentence be imposed on May 17, 2006, based on the current record, without need of an evidentiary sentencing hearing or a presentence report. INTRODUCTION On March 14, 2006, the United States filed a one-count Information charging Akzo Nobel with participating in a conspiracy in the United States and elsewhere to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the prices of hydrogen peroxide beginning on or about July 1, 1998 and continuing until on or about December 1, 2001, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Akzo Nobel is scheduled to be arraigned on May 17, 2006. Akzo Nobel will waive
indictment and plead guilty under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). The United States and Akzo Nobel jointly submit this Joint Sentencing Memorandum to request that the Court sentence Akzo Nobel on an expedited basis pursuant to Crim. L.R. 32-1(b). This Memorandum also outlines the material terms of the Plea Agreement between the United States and Akzo Nobel, in the event the Court grants the parties’ request to impose a sentence immediately on May 17, 2006, after accepting Akzo Nobel’s guilty plea. In conjunction with this Joint Sentencing Memorandum, the United States and Akzo Nobel have filed a Stipulation in Support of Expedited Sentencing and a Proposed Order for Expedited Sentencing Pursuant to L.R. 32-1(b). The United States and Akzo Nobel respectfully submit that this Memorandum and the Plea Agreement provide sufficient information for the Court to impose sentence immediately without a presentence report. In addition, an expedited sentencing would accommodate Akzo Nobel’s corporate representative. If the Court finds that the Plea Agreement and this Memorandum do not provide sufficient information to allow for the imposition of sentence on the scheduled date of the plea hearing, the parties are prepared to submit additional information requested by the Court. A copy of the Akzo Nobel 11(c)(1)(C) Plea Agreement is attached as Exhibit A to this Memorandum. MATERIAL TERMS OF AKZO NOBEL PLEA AGREEMENT The material terms of the Akzo Nobel Plea Agreement include: 1. Akzo Nobel will waive indictment, waive all rights as enumerated in the Plea
Agreement, and plead guilty under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1) to an Information charging it with participating in a conspiracy in the United States and elsewhere to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the prices of hydrogen peroxide beginning on or about July 1, 1998 and continuing until on or about December 1, 2001, (the “relevant period”) in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. During the relevant period, the defendant was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Netherlands, and had its principal place of business in Amersfoort, the Netherlands. During the relevant period, the defendant was a producer of hydrogen peroxide, was engaged in the sale of hydrogen peroxide in the United States
JOINT SENTENCING MEMORANDUM–AKZO 2
and elsewhere, and employed 5,000 or more individuals. The defendant’s sales of hydrogen peroxide to U.S. customers affected by the conspiracy totaled approximately $82,900,000. 2. The United States and Akzo Nobel agree that the appropriate sentence in this case
is a criminal fine of $32 million and a special assessment of $400. The fine is to be paid in full within 15 days of the imposition of sentence. Both parties recommend that no term of probation be imposed. Akzo Nobel agrees to have its sentence determined under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.,” “Sentencing Guidelines,” or “Guidelines”), although Akzo Nobel understands the Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory. The United States contends that had this case gone to trial, the United States would have presented evidence to prove that the gain derived from or the loss resulting from the charged offense is sufficient to justify a fine of $32 million, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d). For purposes of this plea and sentencing only, the defendant waives its right to contest this calculation. 3. The United States will not seek restitution in this case in light of the civil class
action cases filed against Akzo Nobel, including In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, No. 05-666, MDL No. 1682, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which potentially provide for recovery of a multiple of actual damages. 4. The United States agrees that it will not bring further criminal charges against
Akzo Nobel and its current or former officers, directors, and employees (except for Dag Strömqvist and Börje Andersson, who have been specifically excluded from the Plea Agreement) for their participation in the hydrogen peroxide conspiracy. In return, Akzo Nobel agrees to cooperate fully in the ongoing hydrogen peroxide investigation. Akzo Nobel has already produced documents and other valuable information. Moreover, Akzo Nobel has agreed to make employees available to the United States for interviews and to produce documents located outside the country, which are beyond the jurisdictional reach of the government’s grand jury subpoenas. The documents produced, as well as additional proffered cooperation, have substantially assisted the United States in furthering its investigation. /// ///
JOINT SENTENCING MEMORANDUM–AKZO 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2.
UNITED STATES SENTENCING GUIDELINES CALCULATIONS The parties agree to the following Sentencing Guidelines calculations, which are based on the affected hydrogen peroxide sales in the United States of $82.9 million: 1. Base Fine (20% of $82.9 million (Volume of Affected Commerce) (§ 2R1.1(d)(1) & § 8C2.4(b)) Culpability Score i. ii. iii. Base (§ 8C2.5(a)) Involvement in or Tolerance of Criminal Activity (§ 8C2.5(b)(1)) Prior History (§ 8C2.5(c)) Violation of Order (§ 8C2.5(d)) Obstruction of Justice (§ 8C2.5(e)) Effective Program to Prevent and Detect Violations of Law (§ 8C2.5(f)) Self-Reporting, Cooperation, and Acceptance of Responsibility (§ 8C2.5(g)(2)) 5 5 2 0 0 0 $16.58 million
10 iv. 11 v. 12 vi. 13 14 vii. 15 16 c. 17 d. 18 19 20 The United States will move, pursuant to § 8C4.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, for a 21 downward departure from the minimum Guidelines fine to a fine of $32 million due to Akzo 22 Nobel’s substantial assistance in the United States’ hydrogen peroxide investigation. 23 Additionally, Akzo Nobel has agreed to produce relevant documents from the United States and 24 abroad as a condition to the government entering into the Plea Agreement. Defendant has agreed 25 to continue to assist in the government’s investigation. 26 /// 27 /// 28
JOINT SENTENCING MEMORANDUM–AKZO 4
Total Culpability Score: Minimum and Maximum Multipliers (§ 8C2.6) Minimum and Maximum Fine Range (§ 8C2.7)
10 2.0 - 4.0 $33.16 - $66.32 million
DATED: May 3, 2006 AKZO NOBEL CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL B.V. BY:___________/s/______________ A. Jan A.J. Eijsbouts General Counsel Akzo Nobel Group COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
Respectfully submitted, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BY:__________/s/_______________ Gary R. Spratling, Esq. Daniel G. Swanson, Esq. Stephen C. McKenna, Esq. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP One Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 393-8200
BY:___________/s/__________________ Niall E. Lynch Assistant Chief, San Francisco Office Lidia Spiroff Sidney A. Majalya Lara M. Kroop Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division 450 Golden Gate Avenue Box 36046, Room 10-0101 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 436-6660 Fax: (415) 436-6687
Filed 5/4/2006 Exhibit “A”
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ) ) ) v. ) ) ) AKZO NOBEL CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL ) B.V., ) ) Defendant. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA No. CR 06-0160 MMC PLEA AGREEMENT
to decline to accept service of the Summons in this case, and to contest the jurisdiction of the United States to prosecute this case against it in the United States District Court for
PLEA AGREEMENT–AKZO NOBEL
1(b)-(g) above, including all jurisdictional defenses to the prosecution of this case, and agrees voluntarily to consent to the jurisdiction of the United States to prosecute this case against it in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The defendant also knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to file any appeal, any collateral attack, or any other writ or motion, including but not limited to an appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742, that challenges the sentence imposed by the Court if that sentence is consistent with or below the recommended sentence in Paragraph 8 of this Plea Agreement, regardless of how the sentence is determined by the Court. This agreement does not affect the rights or obligations of the United States as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b) and (c). Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(b), the defendant will waive indictment and plead guilty at arraignment to a one-count Information to be filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Information will charge the defendant with participating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the price of hydrogen peroxide sold in the United States and elsewhere, beginning on or about July 1, 1998 and continuing until on or about December 1, 2001, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. 3. The defendant, pursuant to the terms of this Plea Agreement, will plead guilty to 2
the criminal charge described in Paragraph 2 above and will make a factual admission of guilt to the Court in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, as set forth in Paragraph 4 below. FACTUAL BASIS FOR OFFENSE CHARGED 4. Had this case gone to trial, the United States would have presented evidence
beginning on or about July 1, 1998 and continuing until on or about December 1, 2001. During the relevant period, the defendant was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Netherlands. The defendant has its principal place of business in Amersfoort, the Netherlands. During the relevant period, the defendant, including its subsidiaries, was a producer of hydrogen peroxide, was engaged in the sale of hydrogen peroxide in the United States and elsewhere, and employed 5,000 or more individuals. Hydrogen peroxide is a chemical compound with strong oxidizing properties that is widely used as a bleaching agent. Hydrogen peroxide has multiple industrial uses, including applications in the electronics, energy production, mining, cosmetics, food processing, textiles, and pulp and paper manufacturing industries. During the relevant period, the defendant’s sales of hydrogen peroxide to U.S. customers totaled approximately $82,900,000. (b) During the relevant period, the defendant, through certain executives and
employees, participated in a conspiracy among major hydrogen peroxide producers, the primary purpose of which was to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the price of hydrogen peroxide sold in the United States and elsewhere. In furtherance of the conspiracy, the defendant, through certain executives and employees, engaged in discussions with representatives of other major hydrogen peroxide producers. During these discussions, agreements were reached to fix the price of hydrogen peroxide to be sold in the United States and elsewhere. (c) During the relevant period, hydrogen peroxide sold by one or more of the
distribution of hydrogen peroxide, as well as payments for hydrogen peroxide, traveled in interstate and foreign commerce. The business activities of the defendant and its co-conspirators in connection with the production and sale of hydrogen peroxide affected by this conspiracy were within the flow of, and substantially affected, interstate and foreign trade and commerce. (d) Hydrogen peroxide affected by this conspiracy was sold by one or more of
(“U.S.S.G.,” “Sentencing Guidelines,” or “Guidelines”), 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(2) or 3663(a)(3), the Court may order it to pay restitution to the victims of the offense; and (c) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(B), the Court is required to order the
defendant to pay a $400 special assessment upon conviction for the charged crime. SENTENCING GUIDELINES 7. The defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, not
mandatory, but that the Court must consider the Guidelines in effect on the day of sentencing, along with the other factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a), in determining and imposing
sentence. The defendant understands that the Guidelines determinations will be made by the Court by a preponderance of the evidence standard. The defendant understands that although the Court is not ultimately bound to impose a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range, its sentence must be reasonable based upon consideration of all relevant sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8, the United States agrees that self-incriminating information that the defendant provides to the United States pursuant to this Plea Agreement will not be used to increase the volume of affected commerce attributable to the defendant or in determining the defendant’s applicable Guidelines range, except to the extent provided in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8(b). SENTENCING AGREEMENT 8. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), the United States and the defendant
agree that the appropriate disposition of this case is, and agree to recommend jointly that the Court impose, a sentence requiring the defendant to pay to the United States a criminal fine of $32 million, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d), payable in full before the fifteenth (15th) day after the date of judgment (“the recommended sentence”). The parties agree that there exists no aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the U.S. Sentencing Commission in formulating the Sentencing Guidelines justifying a departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0. The parties agree not to seek or support any sentence outside of the Guidelines range nor any Guidelines adjustment for any reason that is not set forth in this Plea Agreement. The parties further agree that the recommended sentence set forth in this Plea Agreement is reasonable. (a) The defendant understands that the Court will order it to pay a $400
special assessment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(B), in addition to any fine imposed. (b) Both parties will recommend that no term of probation be imposed, but the
defendant understands that the Court’s denial of this request will not void this Plea Agreement. (c) The United States and the defendant jointly submit that this Plea 5
Agreement, together with the record that will be created by the United States and the defendant at the plea and sentencing hearings, and the further disclosure described in Paragraph 10, will provide sufficient information concerning the defendant, the crime charged in this case, and the defendant’s role in the crime to enable the meaningful exercise of sentencing authority by the Court under 18 U.S.C. § 3553. The United States and defendant agree to request jointly that the Court accept the defendant’s guilty plea and impose sentence on an expedited schedule as early as the date of arraignment, based upon the record provided by the defendant and the United States, under the provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1)(A)(ii), U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1, and Rule 32-1(b) of the Criminal Local Rules. The Court’s denial of the request to impose sentence on an expedited schedule will not void this Plea Agreement. (d) The United States contends that had this case gone to trial, the United
States would have presented evidence to prove that the gain derived from or the loss resulting from the charged offense is sufficient to justify the recommended sentence set forth in this paragraph, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d). For purposes of this plea and sentencing only, the defendant waives its rights to contest this calculation. 9. The United States and the defendant agree that the applicable Guidelines fine
range exceeds the fine contained in the recommended sentence set out in Paragraph 8 above. Subject to the full and continuing cooperation of the defendant, as described in Paragraph 13 of this Plea Agreement, and prior to sentencing in this case, the United States agrees that it will make a motion, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 8C4.1, for a downward departure from the Guidelines fine range and will request that the Court impose the recommended sentence set out in Paragraph 8 of this Plea Agreement because of the defendant’s substantial assistance in the government’s investigation and prosecution of violations of federal criminal law in the hydrogen peroxide industry and in other chemical industries. 10. Subject to the ongoing, full, and truthful cooperation of the defendant described in
Paragraph 13 of this Plea Agreement, and before sentencing in the case, the United States will fully advise the Court and the Probation Office as to: (i) the fact, manner, and extent of the
defendant’s cooperation and its commitment to prospective cooperation with the United States’ investigation and prosecutions; (ii) all material facts relating to the defendant’s involvement in the charged offense; and (iii) all other relevant conduct. 11. The United States and the defendant understand that the Court retains complete
will be free to withdraw its guilty plea (Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(5) and (d)). If the defendant withdraws its plea of guilty, this Plea Agreement, the guilty plea, and any statement made in the course of any proceedings under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 regarding the guilty plea or this Plea Agreement or made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the government shall not be admissible against the defendant in any criminal or civil proceeding, except as otherwise provided in Fed. R. Evid. 410. In addition, the defendant agrees that, if it withdraws its guilty plea pursuant to this subparagraph of the Plea Agreement, the statute of limitations period for any offense referred to in Paragraph 15 of this Plea Agreement will be tolled for the period between the date of the signing of the Plea Agreement and the date the defendant withdrew its guilty plea or for a period of sixty (60) days after the date of the signing of the Plea Agreement, whichever period is greater. 12. In light of the civil class action cases filed against the defendant, which potentially
provide for a recovery of a multiple of actual damages, the United States agrees that it will not seek a restitution order for the offense charged in the Information. DEFENDANT’S COOPERATION 13. The defendant and its parents and subsidiaries that are engaged in the sale or
production of hydrogen peroxide (collectively, “related entities”) will cooperate fully and
truthfully with the United States in the prosecution of this case, the conduct of the current federal investigation of violations of federal antitrust and related criminal laws involving the manufacture or sale of hydrogen peroxide, any other federal investigation resulting therefrom, and any litigation or other proceedings arising or resulting from any such investigation to which the United States is a party (“federal proceeding”). The ongoing, full, and truthful cooperation of the defendant shall include, but not be limited to: (a) producing to the United States all non-privileged documents, information,
cooperation, as defined in Paragraph 14 of this Plea Agreement, of the current and former directors, officers, and employees of the defendant or any of its related entities as may be requested by the United States, but excluding Dag Strömqvist and Börje Andersson, including making such persons available in the United States and at other mutually agreed-upon locations, at the defendant’s expense, for interviews and the provision of testimony in grand jury, trial, and other judicial proceedings in connection with any federal proceeding. 14. The ongoing, full, and truthful cooperation of each person described in Paragraph
at other mutually agreed-upon locations, not at the expense of the United States, upon the request of attorneys and agents of the United States; (c) responding fully and truthfully to all inquiries of the United States in 8
imposition of the recommended sentence, and subject to the cooperation requirements of Paragraph 13 of this Plea Agreement, the United States agrees that it will not bring further criminal charges against the defendant or any of its related entities for any act or offense committed before the date of this Plea Agreement that was undertaken in furtherance of an attempted or completed antitrust conspiracy involving the manufacture or sale of hydrogen peroxide. The nonprosecution terms of this paragraph do not apply to civil matters of any kind, to any violation of the federal tax or securities laws, or to any crime of violence. 16. The United States agrees to the following: 9
Agreement and the imposition of the recommended sentence and subject to the exceptions noted in Paragraph 16(c), the United States will not bring criminal charges against any current or former director, officer, or employee of the defendant or its related entities for any act or offense committed before the date of this Plea Agreement and while that person was acting as a director, officer, or employee of the defendant or its related entities that was undertaken in furtherance of an attempted or completed antitrust conspiracy involving the manufacture or sale of hydrogen peroxide (“relevant offense”), except that the protections granted in this paragraph shall not apply to Dag Strömqvist or Börje Andersson; (b) Should the United States determine that any current or former director,
officer, or employee of the defendant or its related entities may have information relevant to any federal proceeding, the United States may request that person’s cooperation under the terms of this Plea Agreement by written request delivered to counsel for the individual (with a copy to the undersigned counsel for the defendant) or, if the individual is not known by the United States to be represented, to the undersigned counsel for the defendant; (c) If any person requested to provide cooperation under Paragraph 16(b) fails
described in Paragraph 16(b) to the United States under the terms of this Plea Agreement pertaining to any relevant offense, or any information directly or indirectly derived from that information, may not be used against that person in a criminal case, except in a prosecution for perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1621), making a false statement or declaration (18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1623), or obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503); (e) If any person who provides information to the United States under this 10
interviews, grand jury appearances, or court appearances pursuant to this Plea Agreement, or for meetings with counsel in preparation therefor, the United States will take no action, based upon any relevant offense, to subject such person to arrest, detention, or service of process, or to prevent such person from departing the United States. This paragraph does not apply to an individual’s commission of perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1621), making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001), making false statements or declarations in grand jury or court proceedings (18 U.S.C. § 1623), obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503), or contempt (18 U.S.C. §§ 401-402) in connection with any testimony or information provided or requested in any federal proceeding. 18. The defendant understands that it may be subject to administrative action by
federal or state agencies other than the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, based upon the conviction resulting from this Plea Agreement, and that this Plea Agreement in no way controls whatever action, if any, other agencies may take. However, the United States agrees that, if requested, it will advise the appropriate officials of any governmental agency considering such administrative action of the fact, manner, and extent of the cooperation of the defendant and its related entities as a matter for that agency to consider before determining what administrative action, if any, to take. ///
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21. 20. 19.
REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL The defendant has been represented by counsel and is fully satisfied that its
attorneys have provided competent legal representation. The defendant has thoroughly reviewed this Plea Agreement and acknowledges that counsel has advised it of the nature of the charge, any possible defenses to the charge, and the nature and range of possible sentences. VOLUNTARY PLEA The defendant’s decision to enter into this Plea Agreement and to tender a plea of
during the period that any federal proceeding is pending, that the defendant or any of its related entities have failed to provide full and truthful cooperation, as described in Paragraph 13 of this Plea Agreement, or has otherwise violated any provision of this Plea Agreement, the United States will notify counsel for the defendant in writing by personal or overnight delivery or facsimile transmission and may also notify counsel by telephone of its intention to void any of its obligations under this Plea Agreement (except its obligations under this paragraph), and the defendant and its related entities shall be subject to prosecution for any federal crime of which the United States has knowledge including, but not limited to, the substantive offenses relating to the investigation resulting in this Plea Agreement. The defendant and its related entities may seek Court review of any determination made by the United States under this Paragraph to void any of its obligations under the Plea Agreement. The defendant and its related entities agree that, in the event that the United States is released from its obligations under this Plea Agreement and brings criminal charges against the defendant or its related entities for any offense referred to in Paragraph 15 of this Plea Agreement, the statute of limitations period for such offense will be tolled for the period between the date of the signing of this Plea Agreement and six (6)
months after the date the United States gave notice of its intent to void its obligations under this Plea Agreement. 22. The defendant understands and agrees that in any further prosecution
and the defendant concerning the disposition of the criminal charge in this case. This Plea Agreement cannot be modified except in writing, signed by the United States and the defendant. 26. The undersigned is authorized to enter this Plea Agreement on behalf of the
defendant as evidenced by the Power of Attorney of the defendant attached to, and incorporated by reference in, this Plea Agreement. 27. The undersigned attorneys for the United States have been authorized
by the Attorney General of the United States to enter this Plea Agreement on behalf of the United States. /// /// /// /// /// /// ///
executing this Plea Agreement. Multiple signature pages are authorized for the purpose of executing this Plea Agreement. DATED: March 14, 2006 Respectfully submitted,
BY:___________/s/______________________ A. Jan A.J. Eijsbouts General Counsel Akzo Nobel Group COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT BY:__________/s/_______________________ Gary R. Spratling, Esq. Daniel G. Swanson, Esq. Stephen C. McKenna, Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP One Montgomery Street Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 393-820
BY:______________/s/________________ Niall E. Lynch Assistant Chief, San Francisco Office Lidia Spiroff Sidney A. Majalya Lara M. Kroop Trial Attorneys United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division 450 Golden Gate Avenue Box 36046, Room 10-0101 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 436-6660
US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01784-216122 by legalmatters28 viewsEmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01781-216082by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01795-216369by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01422-209230by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01437-209571by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01787-216208by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00907-201146by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01773-216018by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01766-215787by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01222-204498by legalmattersΟρέ πάρτε το χαμπάρι Γερμανός και καλός δεν γίνεταιby ANTI300Fsi Aug 29 2014 Qantasby Inspector McTaggart's Crime SeriesUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01231-204614by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00753-200362by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01404-208844by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01026-201938by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01727-215453by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01350-206831by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00566-1203by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01905-218410by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00750-200356by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 02023-220400by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01361-207208by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01053-202231by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01870-217831by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01791-216317by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01348-206700by legalmattersBarclays Guilty Pleaby Allie ContiUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01871-217832by legalmattersSimilar to US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01784-216122US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01781-216082US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01795-216369US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01422-209230US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01437-209571US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01787-216208US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00907-201146US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01773-216018US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01766-215787US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01222-204498Ορέ πάρτε το χαμπάρι Γερμανός και καλός δεν γίνεταιFsi Aug 29 2014 QantasUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01231-204614US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00753-200362US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01404-208844US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01026-201938US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01727-215453US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01350-206831US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00566-1203US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01905-218410US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00750-200356US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 02023-220400US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01361-207208US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01053-202231US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01870-217831US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01791-216317US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01348-206700Barclays Guilty PleaUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01871-217832Plea Agreement and Statement of FactsUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00848-200896US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01784-216122