Monthly Archives: August 2013

“My take is this deal is dead” states Allen Grunes in Bloomberg: “AMR-US Airways Antitrust Suit Seen as Difficult to Settle”

Posted on by

From Bloomberg:

The challenge brought by the U.S. Justice Department can be compared with its lawsuit seeking to block AT&T Inc. (T)’s proposed takeover of T-Mobile USA Inc. in 2011, said Allen Grunes, an antitrust lawyer with GeyerGorey LLP. AT&T eventually dropped its bid for T-Mobile. “My take is that the deal is dead,” Grunes said. “Based on the complaint, this merger doesn’t look like it can be fixed with divestitures or slot sales.”

Read More By Clicking Below:

AMR-US Airways Antitrust Suit Seen as Difficult to Settle

 

FLORIDA AIRLINE FUEL SUPPLY COMPANY AND ITS OWNER INDICTED FOR ROLE IN SCHEME TO DEFRAUD ILLINOIS-BASED RYAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES

Posted on by

 

WASHINGTON — A Florida-based airline fuel supply service company and its former owner and operator were indicted yesterday on charges of participating in a scheme to defraud Illinois-based Ryan International Airlines, the Department of Justice announced.

A federal grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in West Palm Beach, Fla., returned an indictment against Sean E. Wagner and his company Aviation Fuel International Inc. (AFI), an airline fuel supply company.  The indictment alleges that Wagner and AFI participated in a conspiracy to defraud Ryan, a charter airline company based in Rockford, Ill., by making kickback payments to Wayne Kepple, a former vice president of ground operations for Ryan, in exchange for awarding business to AFI. Wagner was arrested on July 19, 2013, in Weston, Fla., on a one-count criminal complaint in connection with these charges.

Ryan provided air passenger and cargo services for corporations, private individuals and the U.S. government – including the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The indictment alleges, among other things, that from at least as early as December 2005 through at least August 2009, Wagner, AFI and others made kickback payments totaling more than $200,000, in the form of checks, wire transfers, cash and gift cards, to Kepple while working at Ryan.

“The conspirators traded contracts for kickbacks and took affirmative steps to hide their illegal scheme, including wiring payments to personal bank accounts and making secret cash payments,” said Bill Baer, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division.  “The division will continue to aggressively prosecute companies and individuals that seek to defraud the government and U.S. taxpayers by thwarting the competitive process.”

Wagner and AFI are charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and honest services fraud, as well as two counts of wire fraud and two counts of mail fraud.  Each count carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 criminal fine for individuals and a $500,000 criminal fine for corporations.  The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either amount is greater than the statutory maximum fine.

As a result of this ongoing investigation, four individuals have pleaded guilty to date. Three of the individuals have been ordered to serve sentences ranging from 16 to 24 months in prison and to pay more than $220,000 in restitution.  The fourth individual, Kepple, pleaded guilty and is currently awaiting sentencing.

The charges are the result of an investigation being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s National Criminal Enforcement Section and the U.S. Department of Defense’s Office of Inspector General with assistance from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida.

“Upstart Start-Up” GeyerGorey LLP Opens Dallas Office

Posted on by

“Rocketing from two to eleven attorneys in eight months, GeyerGorey LLP sports over 200 years of cross-disciplinary prosecutorial experience involving a host of domestic and international industries where each of its attorneys has worked on internal investigations and high stakes cases for an average of more than 20 years.”

For more, click the link below:

-12191777-upstart-start-up-geyergorey-llp-opens-dallas-office

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

Posted on by

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.”

Maurice Stucke Quoted in Wall Street Journal’s “Merging Airlines, Concessions May Not Be Enough.”

Posted on by

Excerpt:
“In the case of United Airlines and Continental Airlines, the companies cleared the hurdle after agreeing to lease 18 daily “slot pairs” — the government-issued rights to take off and land – at Newark Liberty International Airport to Southwest Airlines.

‘The DOJ really drew a line in the sand,” said Mr. Stucke. “They basically looked at all of the consolidations up to this point and found that consumers haven’t significantly benefited but rather consumers have been harmed.'”

For entire article, click below:

For Merging Airlines, Concessions May Not Be Enough

 

Justice Department Files Antitrust Lawsuit Challenging Proposed Merger Between US Airways and American Airlines Merger Would Result in U.S. Consumers Paying Higher Airfares and Receiving Less Service; Lawsuit Seeks to Maintain Competition in the Airline Industry

Posted on by
The Department of Justice, six state attorneys general and the District of Columbia filed a civil antitrust lawsuit today challenging the proposed $11 billion merger between US Airways Group Inc. and American Airlines’ parent corporation, AMR Corp.  The department said that the merger, which would result in the creation of the world’s largest airline, would substantially lessen competition for commercial air travel in local markets throughout the United States and result in passengers paying higher airfares and receiving less service.

The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, along with the attorneys general, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which seeks to prevent the companies from merging and to preserve the existing head-to-head competition between the firms that the transaction would eliminate.   The participating attorneys general are:   Texas, where American Airlines is headquartered; Arizona, where US Airways is headquartered; Florida; the District of Columbia; Pennsylvania; Tennessee; and Virginia.

“Airline travel is vital to millions of American consumers who fly regularly for either business or pleasure,” said Attorney General Eric Holder.   “By challenging this merger, the Department of Justice is saying that the American people deserve better.   This transaction would result in consumers paying the price – in higher airfares, higher fees and fewer choices.   Today’s action proves our determination to fight for the best interests of consumers by ensuring robust competition in the marketplace.”

Last year, business and leisure airline travelers spent more than $70 billion on airfare for travel throughout the United States.    In recent years, major airlines have, in tandem, raised fares, imposed new and higher fees and reduced service, the department said.

“The department sued to block this merger because it would eliminate competition between US Airways and American and put consumers at risk of higher prices and reduced service,” said Bill Baer, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “If this merger goes forward, even a small increase in the price of airline tickets, checked bags or flight change fees would result in hundreds of millions of dollars of harm to American consumers.   Both airlines have stated they can succeed on a standalone basis and consumers deserve the benefit of that continuing competitive dynamic.”

American and US Airways compete directly on more than a thousand routes where one or both offer connecting service, representing tens of billions of dollars in annual revenues.   They engage in head-to-head competition with nonstop service on routes worth about $2 billion in annual route-wide revenues.   Eliminating this head-to-head competition would give the merged airline the incentive and ability to raise airfares, the department said in its complaint.

According to the department’s complaint, the vast majority of domestic airline routes are already highly concentrated.  The merger would create the largest airline in the world and result in four airlines controlling more than 80 percent of the United States commercial air travel market.
The merger would also entrench the merged airline as the dominant carrier at Washington Reagan National Airport, with control of 69 percent of the take-off and landing slots.   The merged airline would have a monopoly on 63 percent of the nonstop routes served out of Reagan National airport.   As a result, Washington, D.C., area passengers would likely see higher prices and fewer choices if the merger is allowed, the department said in its complaint.   Blocking the merger will preserve current competition and service, including flights that US Airways currently offers from Washington’s Reagan National Airport.

The complaint also describes how, in recent years, the major airlines have succeeded in raising prices, imposing new fees and reducing service.  The complaint quotes several public statements by senior US Airways executives directly attributing this trend to a reduction in the number of competitors in the U.S. market:

  • President Scott Kirby said, “Three successful fare increases – [we are] able to pass along to customers because of consolidation.”
  • At an industry conference in 2012, Kirby said, “Consolidation has also…allowed the industry to do things like ancillary revenues…. That is a structural permanent change to the industry and one that’s impossible to overstate the benefit from it.”
  • As US Airways CEO Parker stated in February 2013, combining US Airways and American would be “ the last major piece needed to fully rationalize the industry.”
  • A US Airways document said that capacity reductions have “enabled” fare increases.

“The merger of these two important competitors will just make things worse –exacerbating current airline industry trends toward reduced service, increasing fares and increasing passenger fees,” added Baer.

As the complaint describes, absent the merger, US Airways and American will continue to provide important competitive constraints on each other and on other airlines.   Today, US Airways competes vigorously for price-conscious travelers by offering discounts of up to 40 percent for connecting flights on other airlines’ nonstop routes under its Advantage Fares program. The other legacy airlines – American, Delta and United – routinely match the nonstop fares where they offer connecting service in order to avoid inciting costly fare wars.   The Advantage Fares strategy has been successful for US Airways because its network is different from the networks of the larger carriers. If the proposed merger is completed, the combined airline’s network will look more like the existing American, Delta and United networks, and as a result, the Advantage Fares program will likely be eliminated, resulting in higher prices and less services for consumers. An internal analysis at American in October 2012, concluded, “The [Advantage Fares] program would have to be eliminated in a merger with American, as American’s large, nonstop markets would now be susceptible to reactionary pricing from Delta and United.”   And, another American executive said that same month, “The industry will force alignment to a single approach–one that aligns with the large legacy carriers as it is revenue maximizing.”   By ending the Advantage Fares program, the merger would eliminate lower fares for millions of consumers, the department said.

The complaint also alleges that the merger is likely to result in higher ancillary fees, such as fees charged for checked bags and flight changes.   In recent years, the airlines have introduced fees for those services, which were previously included in the price of a ticket. These fees have become huge profit centers for the airlines.   In 2012, domestic airlines generated more than $6 billion in fees from checked bags and flight changes alone.   The legacy carriers often match each other when one introduces or increases a fee, and if others do not match the initiating carrier tends to withdraw the change.   By reducing the number of airlines, the merger will likely make it easier for the remaining carriers to coordinate fee increases, resulting in higher fees for consumers.

The department also said that the merger will make coordination easier among the legacy carriers.   Although low-cost carriers such as Southwest and JetBlue offer consumers many benefits, they fly to fewer locations and are unlikely to be able to constrain the coordinated behavior among those carriers.

American Airlines is currently operating in bankruptcy.   Absent the merger, American is likely to exit bankruptcy as a vigorous competitor, with strong incentives to grow to better compete with Delta and United, the department said. American recently made the largest aircraft order in industry history, and its post-bankruptcy standalone plan called for increasing both the number of flights and the number of destinations served by those flights at each of its hubs.

The department’s complaint describes US Airways executives’ fear of American’s standalone growth plan as “industry destabilizing.”   The complaint states that US Airways worries that American’s growth plan would cause “others” to react “with their own enhanced growth plans…,” and that the resulting effect would increase competitive pressures throughout the industry.   The department said the merger will allow US Airways’ management to abandon these aggressive growth plans and continue the industry’s current trend toward higher prices and less service.

The department’s complaint states that executives of both airlines have repeatedly said that they do not need the merger to succeed.   The complaint states that US Airways’ CEO observed in December 2011, that “A[merican] is not going away, they will be stronger post-bankruptcy because they will have less debt and reduced labor costs.”   US Airways’ executive vice president wrote in July 2012, that, “There is NO question about AMR’s ability to survive on a standalone basis.”   And, as recently as January 2013, American’s management presented plans that would increase the destinations it serves in the United States and the frequency of its flights, and would position American to compete independently as a profitable airline with aggressive plans for growth.

AMR is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas.   AMR is the parent company of American Airlines.   Last year American flew more than 80 million passengers to more than 250 destinations worldwide and took in more than $24 billion in revenue.   In November 2011, American filed for bankruptcy reorganization.

US Airways is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Tempe, Ariz.   Last year US Airways flew more than 50 million passengers to more than 200 destinations worldwide and took in more than $13 billion in revenue.

United States Files Lawsuit Against PharMerica Corporation for Violations of the False Claims Act and the Controlled Substances Act Government Alleges That Long-term Care Pharmacy Billed Medicare for Schedule II Controlled Substances That Were Dispensed Without a Valid Prescription

Posted on by
The United States has filed suit against PharMerica Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the Justice Department announced today.   The lawsuit alleges that PharMerica violated the False Claims Act and the Controlled Substances Act by dispensing controlled drugs without valid prescriptions and causing claims for illegally dispensed drugs to be submitted to the Medicare program.

 

PharMerica is a long-term care pharmacy that dispenses drugs to residents of long-term care facilities, including nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities. PharMerica services approximately 300,000 residents of long-term care facilities and fills approximately 40 million prescriptions annually.   Many of the prescriptions filled by PharMerica are for controlled substances listed in Schedule II under the Controlled Substances Act.   Schedule II drugs, such as oxycodone and fentanyl, can cause significant harm if used improperly and have a high potential for abuse.

 

“Pharmacies are prohibited by law from dispensing Schedule II narcotics, which have the highest potential for abuse of any prescription drug, without a valid prescription from a physician,” said Stuart Delery, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice.  “As we have done today, the Department of Justice will take action to protect the integrity of Federal health care program funds and hold those who violate the law accountable.”

 

The government’s complaint alleges that PharMerica routinely dispensed Schedule II controlled drugs in non-emergency situations without first obtaining a written prescription from a treating physician.  According to the complaint, PharMerica’s actions violated both the spirit and the letter of the Controlled Substances Act by enabling nursing home staff to order narcotics, and pharmacists to dispense narcotics, before confirming that a physician had made a medical judgment about whether these narcotics were necessary and should be used by the resident.   The complaint alleges that PharMerica knowingly caused the submission of false claims to Medicare for these improperly dispensed Schedule II drugs, in violation of the False Claims Act.

 

The lawsuit was initiated by former PharMerica employee Jennifer Denk who filed a complaint against PharMerica in July 2009.   The complaint was filed under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit parties, known as “relators,” to sue on behalf of the United States when they believe that defendants submitted false claims for government funds.   Under the False Claims Act, the government may intervene in the suit and recover three times its damages plus civil penalties.   Denk’s complaint was later consolidated with a subsequent complaint filed in May 2010 by Eric Beeders and Lesa Martino.

 

“ The complaint that we are filing today reflects the abiding commitment of the Justice Department to the qui tam process, encouraging people with information about alleged fraud and abuse to report it in a timely and effective manner,” said James L. Santelle, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.  “The False Claims Act allegations in this case, which involve Medicare billings for the dispensing of Schedule II controlled substances absent valid prescriptions, are precisely the type of allegations that our office and the Civil Division examine carefully, investigate fully, and prosecute vigorously—to protect taxpayer monies and to promote the delivery of professional health care to all of our constituents.”

 

The investigation was conducted by the Justice Department’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services.
“When the most restrictive class of pharmaceutical controlled substances are dispensed by a pharmacy it is crucial to patient safety, as well as mandatory by federal law, to ensure that the patient’s physician prescribed and intended for the drug to be administered. As alleged in this complaint, PharMerica did not perform that standard of patient care by failing to obtain a valid prescription prior to dispensing and is now being held accountable,” stated Jack Riley, Special Agent in Charge of the DEA’s Chicago Field Division.

 

The government’s involvement in this case is part of the United States’ emphasis on combating health care fraud and another step for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced by Attorney General Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services in 2009.   The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation.   One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act.   Since January 2009, the Justice Department has recovered a total of more than $14.8 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $10.8 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.

 

The lawsuit is captioned U.S. ex rel. Denk v. PharMerica Corporation, Case No. 09-cv-720.   The claims asserted in the complaint against PharMerica are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

Owner of New York Construction Company Indicted for Tax Fraud

Posted on by
The Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that Tomas Olazabal, of Fresh Meadows, N.Y., was arrested today following his indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Aug. 8, 2013, on multiple tax crimes.

According to the indictment, Olazabal owned Tupac Construction Corp., a construction company in Fresh Meadows.  As alleged in the indictment, Olazabal used check cashing services to cash a substantial number of checks paid to his construction company for services between 2007 and 2008.  He concealed his check cashing activities from his tax return preparers.  Accordingly, the gross receipts represented by the checks negotiated at the check cashers were not included as gross receipts on the company’s tax returns.

The indictment alleges that Olazabal filed false 2007 and 2008 corporate income tax returns for Tupac. Olazabal faces a potential maximum sentence of six years in prison and a potential fine of up to $500,000.

A trial date has not been scheduled.  An indictment merely alleges that a crime has been committed, and a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case was investigated by IRS – Criminal Investigation and is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Mark Kotila and Steve Descano of the Justice Department’s Tax Division.

Law360: GeyerGorey Opens In Dallas With Former DOJ Antitrust Ace

Posted on by

Law360: GeyerGorey Opens In Dallas With Former DOJ Antitrust Ace

By Alex Lawson

Law360, New York (August 07, 2013, 3:34 PM ET) — GeyerGorey LLP established its presence in Texas with a splash this week, securing the services of a former U.S. Department of Justice antitrust prosecutor to open its Dallas office, the firm announced Tuesday.
* * * *
Marshall added that the firm has a strong Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance program that she hopes to be heavily involved in.

While Marshall carries experience across a wide variety of industry sectors, senior partner Hays Gorey Jr. said her work in the energy sector will be of critical importance to the firm’s Texas operations.

“We are thrilled that Joan has decided to join us,” Gorey said. “She adds deep experience with numerous enforcement agencies and complements our experience in key industries like oil and gas exploration, not to mention the fraud piece.”

At DOJ, Marshall gained notoriety for her work in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, when she led the Antitrust Division’s bribery prosecutions centering on the construction of the levees surrounding New Orleans. She also served on the agency’s Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force, which was eventually rolled into the broader-reaching Disaster Fraud Task Force.

Firm co-founder Brad Geyer said Marshall’s work in the disaster fraud arena would dovetail nicely with the firm’s existing portfolio.

“We are very involved in servicing the government contractor and the nonprofit and nongovernmental organization community and we are excited to roll in Joan’s disaster fraud experience into our overall product offerings,” Geyer said. “It is also unusual to have career prosecutors in one firm that worked on the highest profile matters on both the criminal and civil worlds.”

Marshall received her law degree from Southern Methodist University and a Bachelor of Business Administration from the University of North Texas.

–Editing by Katherine Rautenberg.

Texas Businessman Agrees to Settle False Claims Allegations Involving the E-Rate Program

Posted on by

Larry Lehmann of Giddings, Texas has agreed to pay $400,000 to settle allegations that he violated the False Claims Act in connection with the Federal Communications Commission’s E-rate Program, the Department of Justice announced today. The E-rate Program, created by Congress in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, subsidizes eligible equipment and services to make Internet access and internal networking more affordable for public schools and libraries.  The Houston Independent School District (HISD) was one of the applicants that successfully sought and received E-rate subsidies from 2004 through 2006.

“The E-rate Program provides vital support for our nation’s students and schools,” said Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice.  “We are committed to protecting the integrity of this important program, which helps our children connect to the digital world.”

“Our office is committed to protecting the integrity of government initiatives,” said U.S. Attorney Kenneth Magidson.  “We will continue to work closely with the Department in cases such as this one to ensure the E-rate and other federal programs are free from fraudulent and deceitful claims.”

Lehmann functioned as the CEO and managing partner of Acclaim Professional Services (Acclaim), which partnered with other companies to provide E-rate funded equipment and services to HISD during this period.  The United States contended that, in violation of E-rate competitive bidding requirements and HISD procurement rules, Lehmann provided gifts and loans to HISD employees, including tickets to sporting events and two loans totaling $66,750 to an HISD employee who was involved in the procurement and administration of HISD’s E-rate projects.

The United States also alleged that Lehmann helped devise a scheme in which HISD outsourced some of its employees to Acclaim, which allowed them to continue to work for HISD while passing the cost on to the E-rate Program.  The United States further alleged that, with Lehmann’s approval, Acclaim hid the cost of these employees in its E-rate Program invoices by rolling them into the cost of eligible goods and services.

The settlement with Lehmann is part of a broader investigation by the United States of E-rate funding requests submitted by HISD and the Dallas Independent School District (DISD).  The government previously recovered $16.25 million from Hewlett-Packard, $850,000 from HISD, and $750,000 from DISD.  The government’s investigation was initiated, in part, by a qui tam or whistleblower lawsuit filed under the False Claims Act by Dave Richardson and Dave Gillis, who investigated allegations of improprieties based on Richardson’s experience bidding for contracts at HISD and DISD.  The False Claims Act authorizes private parties to file suit for false claims on behalf of the United States and share in the government’s recovery.  The United States intervened in Richardson and Gillis’ lawsuit, and added Lehmann as a defendant.

“E-rate is one of the FCC’s biggest success stories, helping connect nearly every U.S. library and school to the Internet,” said Julie Veach, Chief of the FCC Wireline Competition Bureau.  “We take any abuse of our rules seriously and thank the Department of Justice for their assistance in protecting the integrity of the E-rate Program for students, teachers, and libraries across the country.  Today’s action is a signal to those interested in profiting at the expense of our nation’s schools and libraries: fraud doesn’t pay.”

This case was handled by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas, and the FCC’s Office of the Inspector General and Office of the General Counsel.

The claims resolved by this settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.  The lawsuit against Lehmann is captioned United States ex rel. Dave Richardson and Dave Gillis v. Larry Lehmann, Civil Action No. 4:05-cv-3836 (S.D. Tex.).