Bi-Monthly Criminal Cartel Update–Thursday–Feb 18th

I am pleased to announce that GeyerGorey LLP will be hosting the Bi-Monthly Criminal Cartel Update this Thursday, February 18th at 12:30 EST.  The program is a little different this month.  Usually the Update is hosted by one firm with international offices.  GeyerGorey does not have international offices–but we do have friends who do.

The program will be moderated by Hays Gorey, Jr. my partner at GeyerGorey.  I will be reporting on developments in the United States.  My bio is hereDorothy Hansberry Bieguńska of Hansberry Tomkiel, Warsaw, Poland will be covering matters in Europe.  Hays and I both know Dorothy from the years she worked at the Antitrust Division of the DOJ.  Dorothy has gone on to have a very interesting international career and is a founder of Hansberry Tomkiel, a leading Polish competition law firm.  Masayuki Atsumi, a lawyer at Mori Hamada & Matsumoto, Tokyo, Japan will be covering developments in Asia.  I first got to know Masayuki when he contributed posts to Cartel Capers.  Masayuki is now seconded to Covington & Burling and is stationed in Covington’s DC office.

I hope we can bring you an interesting program and match the usual high quality of these ongoing updates.  You can register here.  The official ABA announcement is below. 


Dear Friends,

We hope you will join us on February 18th from 12:30 to 1:30 EDT for the Bi-Monthly Criminal Cartel Update. You can register for the Bi-Monthly Criminal Cartel Update here:


February 18th 2016

12:30 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time

This continuing program series offers an excellent opportunity to learn about recent developments in criminal antitrust law that may impact your clients, company or litigation strategy. Our presenters will report on recent Antitrust Division enforcement actions and related litigation, policy updates, international coordination, and other important developments in criminal antitrust law. The presentation will last about one hour, including an opportunity at the end for participants to ask questions.

This program will be moderated by Hays Gorey, Jr., at GeyerGorey LLP, and includes an excellent panel of speakers:

Robert E. Connolly – GeyerGorey LLP, Philadelphia, Pa.

Dorothy Hansberry Bieguńska – Hansberry Tomkiel, Warsaw, Poland

Masayuki Atsumi – Mori Hamada & Matsumoto, Tokyo, Japan

Program materials will be distributed to participants prior to the program.

Wealthy Max Limited Files Suit Against The Treasury, Mint And Bureau Of Customs And Border Protection In The U.S. District Court In Philadelphia

PHILADELPHIAOct. 29, 2015 /PRNewswire/ — The Wealthy Max Limited (Wealthy Max) legal defense team today filed a lawsuit against the US Treasury, US Mint and Bureau of Customs and Border Protection along with Jacob J. Lew, Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, Rhett Jeppson, Deputy Director of the US Mint, and R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection for improperly seizing three shipments of damaged coins that were sent to the Mint under the Mutilated Coin Redemption Program with a total value of $3.25 million.  The suit argues that the government violated the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (“CAFRA”) and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution by failing to notify Wealthy Max of the seizure within 60 days or file a civil forfeiture complaint within 90 days.  Wealthy Max is involved in recovering mutilated coins that are a by-product of the metal recycling business in China.  The company has an unblemished 13 year record with over 150 shipments of mutilated coins accepted by the US Mint.  The three shipments that have been mysteriously seized were delivered on June 26 and October 16, 2014 and March 25, 2015.  Multiple requests to the relevant government authorities by the company for the status of its shipments and later for the return of its property have been ignored.

“Wealthy Max has filed this suit against the US government authorities to recover its property, or receive compensation, as is its right under the law,” said Bradford L. Geyer of GeyerGorey LLP.  “CAFRA was enacted to prevent just this type of government overreach in the seizure of private property.  The rules are clear, if the government seizes property it has to provide notification to the owner within 60 days and file a complaint for forfeiture within 90 days.  In this case the government has utterly failed to comply with the law.” The total value of the three shipments is over $3.25 million, which Wealthy Max would have used to source additional coins for redemption in the program.  That these funds have been indefinitely frozen has had a significant negative impact on the company’s business and opened the US Mint’s program to questions about its trustworthiness. “For the last 13 years Wealthy Max has been a participant in good standing in the Mint’s program, which makes the government’s de facto confiscation of its property all the more disappointing.  This action is a clear violation of CAFRA and of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, and as such needs to be corrected as soon as possible.  For the sake of fairness and justice the government will need to either return the shipments or compensate our client for their full value,” concluded Geyer.

Allen P. Grunes: “Another Look at Privacy,” 20 Geo. Mason L. Rev. (Summer 2013)

Allen Grunes took a moment to discuss his latest law review article on the intersection of privacy and Antitrust Law and suggests its implications for the future: 

Another Look at Privacy, 20 Geo. Mason L. Rev. (Summer 2013)

“Antitrust law does not often take privacy issues into account, even when construing ‘privacy’ in its broadest sense to include privacy policies, the collection and subsequent use or sale of personal information, and privacy regulation. Issues involving privacy and its flip side, “big data,” occasionally do surface in antitrust matters, but by and large they remain on the margin. There have been a handful of attempts to move privacy more toward the center of the antitrust universe, but they have not been very successful.

In this Article, I first discuss some of the challenges consumer privacy poses and why antitrust has had a difficult time with privacy considerations. Next, I discuss several arguments that a few brave souls have made urging that privacy should be more central to antitrust—especially when consumer data is at the center of a merger, as it was in Google/DoubleClick. I then look at some of the ways that, on the periphery, antitrust law does incorporate privacy issues. Finally, I offer what is hopefully a more nuanced and productive way of thinking about the issue based on several characteristics of online markets, and suggest a few interesting implications for the future.”