Source: http://cartelcapers.com/page/4/
Timestamp: 2017-03-25 13:34:06
Document Index: 483594544

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2703', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2']

Cartel Capers - Page 4 of 20 - A blog about cartels, competition and compliance
ABA Journal Top 100 Blogs Survey July 27, 2016 by Robert Connolly Leave a Comment Dear Friends:
Share this:TwitterFacebookGoogleRedditLinkedInEmailPrintFiled Under: Blog Is Convergence On Individual Punishment for Cartel Violations A Possibility? July 25, 2016 by Robert Connolly Leave a Comment One of the aspirations of many antitrust/competition lawyers worldwide is to achieve as much convergence as possible among competition authorities in enforcing competition law. Counseling companies and individuals who do business on a worldwide basis on the many differences in competition law can be inefficient, costly and result in less than optimal competition and deterrence of anticompetitive acts. A series of recent global cartel enforcement actions highlights how individuals responsible for cartel behavior around the world are treated in vastly different way.
The European Commission just announced record cartel fines of $3.2 billion against truck manufacturers. A New York Times article is here and the EC official statement is here. Despite the clear-cut hard-core cartel activity (and many would say fraud) it appears that no individuals will be held accountable. While there is some collateral penalty in terms of their careers, and the possibility of criminal prosecution by a member state, the brunt of any penalty is clearly borne by the stockholders of the company. Recently Australia announced its first criminal prosecution for a cartel offense (here). No individuals were charged in this cartel, but it is a beginning. Only time will tell individuals will eventually be held responsible in Australia, and if so, whether the penalty will include any jail sentence. [Read more…]
Share this:TwitterFacebookGoogleRedditLinkedInEmailPrintFiled Under: Blog Microsoft Wins Battle With DOJ Over Emails On Foreign Located Servers July 21, 2016 by Robert Connolly Leave a Comment On, July 14, 2016 the Second Circuit ruled in a much-anticipated case pitting Microsoft against the Department of Justice. The government sought to compel Microsoft to retrieve a client’s emails located on a server in Dublin, Ireland and produce them in the United States. The emails were sought in connection with a drug trafficking investigation. The nationality of the individual owner of the email account was not part of the record. The production was pursuant to the Stored Communication Act (“SCA”), which was passed in 1986 as part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to give additional protection to new fangled thing called an email. The Second Circuit held that, “§ 2703 of the Stored Communications Act does not authorize courts to issue and enforce against U.S.‐based service providers warrants for the seizure of customer e‐mail content that is stored exclusively on foreign servers.” The matter began in late 2013, when the DOJ served Microsoft with a demand under the SCA, seeking all content associated with a specific email account held by Microsoft. Microsoft produced some limited information about the email account that was on a server in the United States but refused to produce records located on a server in Dublin. Microsoft allowed itself to be held in contempt so the Second Circuit would have jurisdiction to consider the matter. The Second Circuit agreed with Microsoft, reversed the lower court and ruled that the company did not have to produce customer emails located on a server outside of the United States. The full opinion can be found here.
Microsoft had also argued that the government had access to the information under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), adopted by the United States and Ireland in 2001. While obtaining evidence pursuant to an MLAT can be a slow process, it likely would not have taken as long as it did to litigate this case. According the Guardian, “Indeed, the Irish government had said it would have gladly helped the US Department of Justice obtain the records in question, related to a drug trafficking investigation, but they were not consulted.” The government may appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Or perhaps the government will seek a legislative fix. The SCA was passed in the very infancy of email and before even the birth of the World Wide Web. Congress clearly did not have the current IT environment in mind when it passed the SCA. There are competing interests of: 1) the government not being thwarted in investigations by individuals storing relevant electronic records on foreign servers; versus 2) the privacy interests of users and the sovereignty of foreign governments who want the right to control access to information within their own jurisdiction. Judge Gerard Lynch wrote in a concurring opinion that he agreed with the interpretation of the statute, but was concerned that by storing data overseas, criminals could keep electronic records outside the reach authorities. He said that a new law must be created that provides balance between law enforcement and the privacy of users.
Share this:TwitterFacebookGoogleRedditLinkedInEmailPrintFiled Under: Blog Judge Refuses to Accept Plea Without Company Representative Present June 21, 2016 by Robert Connolly 1 Comment On June 10, 2016 Judge William Orrick III refused to accept a guilty plea from Trod Ltd, a British company d/b/a Buy 4 Less. The company did not have a representative at the change of plea hearing but had authorized the company attorney to enter the plea of guilty. Judge Orrick rescheduled the hearing for July 7th. Trod had previously pleaded not guilty but the company had agreed to plead at this hearing to fixing prices for online sales of posters in Amazon’s Marketplace.
This reminded me of a change of plea I was involved in many years ago. Some judges will accept the plea if the corporate attorney has the proper authorization from the company’s Board of Directors. But, the judge in our case, a plea from a Japanese company, required that the company send a representative. The judge was notorious for having hearings faster than the speed of light, especially something as routine as a corporate change of plea. But, when the hearing started, the judge had this “Oh No” look on his face when he realized that a translator was going to translate everything the judge said for the corporate representative from Japan. As it became clear that the proceeding was going to move along at a snail’s pace, the judge began to say to the translator “You don’t have to translate that.” “He doesn’t need to know that….” I imagined myself being that corporate representative from Japan and not knowing what was going on and perhaps wondering if something had gone awry and I was going to jail. Fortunately, everything went according to plan. The plea was accepted, the fine was imposed, and the corporate representative had an uneventful, though bewildering, glimpse of the US legal system.
Share this:TwitterFacebookGoogleRedditLinkedInEmailPrintFiled Under: Blog Some “Plus” Factors Through the Eyes of An Economist (Ai Deng PhD.) June 20, 2016 by Robert Connolly Leave a Comment Today’s guest post is by Ai Deng of Bates White Economic Consulting. Dr. Deng picked up on a theme in a recent Cartel Capers post, (A “Quick Look” for Per Se Illegal Conduct), and has added some helpful thoughts on the types of economic decisions a firm can make that may later be viewed as a “plus factor” to sustain an antitrust claim.
Share this:TwitterFacebookGoogleRedditLinkedInEmailPrintFiled Under: Blog 2016 Antitrust Sentencing Symposium June 13, 2016 by Robert Connolly 2 Comments I am very excited to be a participant at the upcoming 2016 Antitrust Sentencing Symposium at George Mason University School of Law on June 21, 2016 from 8;30 am to 5:00 pm. Below are just a few of the topics that will be covered by the nation’s leading practitioners and professionals (and me), as well as antitrust enforcers from around the world, to brainstorm the best approaches to drive deterrence with the punishment of antitrust offenses at the first ever ABA Antitrust Sentencing Symposium.
Share this:TwitterFacebookGoogleRedditLinkedInEmailPrintFiled Under: Blog Hitachi Chemical Sentenced For Role In Capacitors Cartel June 10, 2016 by Robert Connolly Leave a Comment Just as I had predicted, yesterday Judge Donato sentenced Hitachi Chemical to pay a fine of $3.8 million for its role in the capacitor cartel. OK, not much of a prediction as the $3.8 million fine was what the parties jointly agreed to recommend to the Court and it was an agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), [“C” agreement for short] meaning Hitachi Chemical could withdraw its guilty plea if the Court did not impose that fine.
The Court did extend the term of Hitachi’s probation from 3 years jointly recommended in the plea agreement to 5 years. That change did not give Hitachi Chemical the opportunity to void the plea agreement because “parties also agree[d] that the term and conditions of probation imposed by the Court will not void the plea agreement even if they are different from the recommended term and conditions.” As part of its probation, Hitachi Chemical must develop and implement an effective antitrust compliance program as outlined in the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
In a previous capacitor corporate sentencing, Judge Donato expressed displeasure that the sentence did not include the imposition of a compliance monitor. There was some speculation that he might insist on one for Hitachi Chemical but that did not materialize. For earlier posts on this sentencing see Hitachi Plea Agreement Part 1 and Hitachi Plea Agreement: Part 2.
Share this:TwitterFacebookGoogleRedditLinkedInEmailPrintFiled Under: Blog Hitachi Chemical Plea Agreement: Part 2 June 6, 2016 by Robert Connolly 2 Comments On April 27, 2016 Hitachi Chemical was charged by the Antitrust Division in a one count Information alleging that the company (through predecessor companies) engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids of certain electrolytic capacitors in the United States and elsewhere. On May 13, 2016, the government filed a “Sentencing Memorandum, Motion for Departure and Request for Expedited Sentencing.” The plea agreement was attached to the filing. There are several interesting features of the Information and the plea agreement. The plea agreement calls for a fine of $3.8 million, which was based on a downward departure for substantial assistance. Hitachi’s guidelines range was between $3.96 million and $7.92 based on a volume of commerce $16.5 million. My first post on this plea agreement (here) discussed the most noteworthy provision of the agreement; the agreement that Hitachi Chemical and the government will jointly recommend that the Court sentence Hitachi Chemical to a three-year term of probation. There are a couple of other provisions of the plea agreement that are worth noting and discussed below. [Read more…]
Share this:TwitterFacebookGoogleRedditLinkedInEmailPrintFiled Under: Blog Two Auction Collusion Items of Interest June 2, 2016 by Robert Connolly Leave a Comment There were two items of interest in the auction collusion world last week. First, the Antitrust Division concluded its long running (it’s really not necessary to modify “antitrust investigation” with “long running”–just habit) tax lien auction collusion investigation last week with the sentencing of Robert E. Rothman. Mr. Rothman was an early cooperator in the investigation. He entered into a plea agreement in March 2012. Rothman was sentenced to probation and a $20,000 fine by U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the District of New Jersey.
On March 29, 2016 James Jeffers Jr., a former bidder for a Pennsylvania tax liens investment company was sentenced by Judge Wigenton to serve a prison term of 12 months and one day and pay a $25,000 criminal fine. Jeffers was convicted by a jury on Oct. 2, 2015 on auction collusion charges after a multi-week criminal trial. I believe, but am not sure, that Jeffers was the only individual in the tax lien auction collusion case to be sentenced to jail. In its press release regarding Jeffers sentencing, the Division said: “Including Jeffers, a total of thirteen individuals and three companies have been convicted or have pleaded guilty as part of the investigation.” The press release doesn’t mention any previous sentences that included incarceration, but if anyone knows that there was, please comment. [Read more…]
Share this:TwitterFacebookGoogleRedditLinkedInEmailPrintFiled Under: Blog Hitachi Chemical Plea Agreement: Part 1—Enhancement of Compliance Program as a Condition of Probation May 19, 2016 by Robert Connolly Leave a Comment On April 27, 2016 Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd. was charged by the Antitrust Division in a one-count Information alleging that the company (through predecessor companies) engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids of certain electrolytic capacitors in the United States and elsewhere beginning at least as early as August 2002 and continuing until at least as late as March 2010. On May 13, 2016, the government filed a “Sentencing Memorandum, Motion for Departure and Request for Expedited Sentencing.” The plea agreement with Hitachi Chemical was filed as an attachment. There are several interesting features of the Information and the plea agreement. The plea agreement calls for a fine of $3.8 million, which was based on a downward departure for substantial assistance. Hitachi’s guidelines range fine was between $3.96 million and $7.92 based on a volume of commerce $16.5 million. Without the downward departure for substantial assistance, the parties agreed that Hitachi’s fine should have been $5.1 million. [Read more…]
Share this:TwitterFacebookGoogleRedditLinkedInEmailPrintFiled Under: Blog « Previous Page
Guest Post by Avinash Amarnath on India Supreme Court Competition Act Case	Defending the Foreign “Fugitive” Against the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine	Guest Post: Competition Law In Vietnam	China Fines 7 Shipping Companies $65 Million	Antitrust Division Files First E-Commerce Case	Hitachi Chemical Sentenced For Role In Capacitors Cartel	Hitachi Chemical Plea Agreement: Part 2	Sovereign Compulsion Defense Blocks Chinese Bauxite Price Fixing Class Action	Thomas Farmer Acquitted in Puerto Rico Shipping Price Fixing Trial	Invitations to Collude Invite Big Trouble	Subscribe to Cartel Capers