Author Archives: Brad Geyer

Time to Reopen Some Antitrust Division Field Offices? (Part II)

Posted on by

Time to Reopen Some Antitrust Division Field Offices? (Part II)

by Leave a Comment

honoreebadgeIn a recent post (here) I advocated for the Trump administration to reopen some of the shuttered Antitrust Division field offices to help focus on public procurement bid rigging at the local and regional level. As discussed in the earlier post, the field offices have always been major contributors to the international cartel program, so this suggestion is not meant to diminish the international effort. But, field offices are uniquely positioned to establish relationships with regional investigative agencies and public procurement bodies, which has led to mega bid rigging investigations and prosecutions such as school milk, road construction, electrical construction and collusion on DOD purchases handled by regional commands.  In this post, I want to focus on two points: 1) that public procurement bid rigging is worthy of the attention of antitrust enforcers; and 2) until the closing of four of the seven field offices, public procurement was a focus of the Antitrust Division resources.

The Impact of Public Procurement Collusion

Established competition regimes have emphasized to their less developed international enforcement agencies that there should be an emphasis on public procurement collusion.   The International Cartel Network (ICN) states:

When bid rigging impacts public procurement, it has the potential to cause great harm. One reason for this is that public procurement is often a large part of a nation’s economy. In many OECD countries, it amounts to 15 per cent of the gross domestic product and in most developing countries; it is substantially more than this. (here)

The Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission expanded on this in a submission to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD. Below is a lengthy quote from the 2007 document, which makes the point I’d like to make better than I can:

PUBLIC PROCUREMENT ñ THE ROLE OF COMPETITION AUTHORITIES IN PROMOTING COMPETITION– United States –5 June 2007

In the United States, government attorneys at the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice have for many years spent considerable time conducting outreach and training programs for public procurement officials and government investigators, including investigators who work for government agencies which solicit bids for various projects. These outreach programs help develop an effective working relationship between the government attorneys who have the expertise concerning investigating and prosecuting bid rigging, and public procurement officials and government investigators who are in the best position to detect and prevent bid rigging on public procurement contracts. Government attorneys advise procurement officials on how their procedures can be changed to decrease the likelihood that bid rigging will occur and what bidding patterns and types of behavior they and their investigators should look for to detect bid rigging. In turn, procurement officials and investigators often provide the key evidence that results in a successful bid-rigging prosecution. Our experience has been that this team effort among public procurement officials, government investigators, and government attorneys has contributed to a significant decrease in bid rigging on public procurement in the United States over the last twenty to thirty years.

In the 1970s and 1980s, a majority of overall criminal antitrust prosecutions in the U.S. were for bid rigging, primarily involving public procurement. Most notable in terms of the number of cases was bid rigging on the construction of roads and on the sale of milk to schools. During this time period, the Antitrust Division filed hundreds of cases involving bid rigging on road building and the sale of milk. More recently, the number of bid-rigging prosecutions has dropped dramatically. For example, during the past three years less than five percent of the criminal antitrust prosecutions in the United States were for bid rigging. (here)

The message has been delivered and received by newer competition agencies. The Competition Commission of India, as just one example, has made public procurement investigations and prosecutions a priority.  This chart is from a Commission publication, Public Procurement System: Competition Issues (here):

GAINS FROM COMPETITION: INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE

  • OECD survey -shows saving to public treasury of 17 to 43% in developing countries
  • European Commission – cost saving of Euro 5 billion to 25 billion between 1993 to 2003
  • In Russia: Saving of $7 billion to Govt. budget in 2008
  • Pakistan: Saving of Rs.187 million for Karachi water and sewerage board
  • Columbia: Saving of 47% in procurement of military goods
  • Guatemala: Saving of 43% in purchase of medicines

Previous Antitrust Division Efforts at Protecting Infrastructure Tax $$

If the Trump administration is able to launch a significant infrastructure development program, the emphasis on pubic procurement competition becomes even more important.   In fact, when the Obama administration launched its American Recovery Act, the Antitrust Division made public procurement a priority. An Antitrust Division press release (here) noted:

A working group, co-chaired by [John] Terzaken and trial attorney Kate Patchen from the Division’s San Francisco field office, conducted training for more than 25,000 individuals from 20 Federal agencies. Terzaken’s development and management of the Recovery Initiative was recognized by the Department with an Attorney General’s Award in 2010.

The bulk of these outreach efforts were conducted by the field offices. I don’t know the exact extent of the Division’s current outreach activity, but from anecdotal evidence it has largely disappeared.

From a practical (and slightly cynical) point of view, launching an effort to prevent and detect public procurement collusion is a win/win situation for any administration. If no collusion is detected, Bingo! The program worked and the taxpayers saved countless dollars. And, if bid rigging is detected and prosecuted, that also is a success, as the prosecution will serve as a strong deterrent that “bid rigging will not be tolerated.”

I think I will have one more post on this subject.

Thanks for reading.

Time to Reopen Some Antitrust Division Field Offices?

Posted on by

Time to Reopen Some Antitrust Division Field Offices?

by 2 Comments

honoreebadgeThere has been much speculation about what a Trump presidency will mean for antitrust enforcement at the Antitrust Division and Federal Trade Commission. Much of the wonder is about whether Trump will take an activist approach he suggested during the campaign, for example, when he said he thought Amazon had “a huge antitrust problem” and he voiced opposition to AT&T’s effort to acquire effort to acquire Time Warner.   Or does the placement of Joshua Wright on the transition team signal a return to a more traditional Republican “hands off” role where the pendulum swings back to a belief that the market will correct concentration issues and the concern is more to prevent wrong-headed government intervention.

I have been thinking about whether there should be any adjustment in criminal enforcement. Criminal enforcement has generally been pretty steady over various administrations. They all have shared the belief that cartels are the “supreme evil of antitrust” and that jail sentences for culpable executives is the best deterrent. Two noteworthy developments in criminal enforcement, however, come to mind. Shortly after World War II, the legendary Thurman Arnold, head of the Antitrust Division, opened field offices to combat bid rigging in the construction trades. And, in 2013, then Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney closed four of the Division’s seven regional offices. The closed offices were Atlanta, Cleveland, Dallas and Philadelphia. New York, Chicago and San Francisco remained open. I think President-elect Trump should reverse that contraction and reopen field offices.

President-elect Trump has promised a massive public procurement effort to help rebuild America’s infrastructure. Two recent international cartel enforcement items brought to mind the wisdom of ramping up regional and local enforcement efforts to deter, investigate and prosecute bid rigging on these public projects. A couple of items caught my attention as I have been thinking of this subject.

 From Canada

On December 5, 2016, the Canadian press reported that:

The Competition Bureau of Canada says its efforts to identify and prevent bid rigging in construction contracts this year has already turned up potential criminal activity — just as new federal infrastructure money begins to flow.

Pierre-Yves Guay, the bureau’s assistant deputy commissioner, said some of the educational outreach the bureau has delivered since April has resulted in illegal activities being uncovered and inquiries being launched. (here)

From Brazil

USA Today reports on December 6, 2016

So far, there are indications that at least five bids related to World Cup stadiums were the subject of the cartel,” the anti-trust body CADE said in a statement…. Reports have been widespread about corruption linked to World Cup stadiums. Investigations are also on-going involving construction projects tied to this year’s Olympics in Rio de Janeiro.  (here).

I am going to write more about why I think it would be a good investment to open additional field offices. But first, a disclaimer. I was the Chief of the dearly departed Philadelphia Field Office and went down with the ship when the office was closed in 2013. I am not lobbying for my old job back, and in fact if I were adding field offices I would not at this time put one in Philadelphia. The real value of the Philadelphia office was the talent and experience of the staff there—and that, like Humpty Dumpty, can’t be put back to together again.   I do, however, think that the regional offices in Atlanta and Dallas should be reopened.

International cartels are a worthy focus of Antitrust Division resources but it’s worth remembering that the field offices played a huge role in the development of the Division’s international cartel program. The modern era of international cartel enforcement was the Archer Daniels Midland case brought by the Chicago Field Office. The record $500 million fine and other convictions in the vitamins investigation led by the Dallas Field Office followed that.  The Philadelphia Field Office had some “firsts” with the graphite electrode investigation and the extradition, trial and conviction of British executive Ian Norris. San Francisco has had accomplishments too numerous to mention as do the criminal sections headquartered in DC with blockbusters like air cargo and auto parts. The point is that international cartels can be investigated and prosecuted wherever there are talented and dedicated antitrust enforcers. But as for regional conspiracies, I don’t believe the opposite is true. The strength of the field offices had always been their ability to network with investigative agencies from the FBI, the gamut of federal IG’s offices, state and local prosecutors and public procurement officials. These local contacts were crucial to educating agents and purchasers about antitrust violations, and giving them the information (and motivation) needed to spot and report possible collusion.

Regional conspiracies do not produce the extraordinary fines that international cartels can. But, there is merit to investigating and prosecuting regional cartels. First, the harm from bid rigging on public procurement is very focused. It isn’t a case of millions of consumers losing pennies on a purchase, but a federal, state or local entity losing a big chunk of its scarce tax dollars. Bid rigging schemes are often more effective at raising prices. They can also be very long-lasting as the structure of public procurement can make these awards both more susceptible to bid rigging and more difficult for market forces to disrupt in the short-term. For these reasons, the Sentencing Guidelines give a modest one-point bump for bid rigging, recognizing it generally has a more serious impact on the victim.

Finally, successful prosecution of a bid-rigging scheme can bring meaningful restitution to the public victim in the form of treble damages. It restores public confidence that tax dollars are being spent wisely. And the cost of publicly procured goods often sees a dramatic drop, sometimes even simply by the start of an investigation. I also think the prosecution and imprisonment of domestic price fixers and bid-riggers can generate publicity and pack more of a “deterrent punch” than prosecution of foreign executives, many whom remain fugitives.

These are just some quick thoughts on why I think a couple of field offices in strategically placed geographic areas would be a boon for antitrust enforcement. I’ll be thinking and writing more about this subject as I get some free time. But, what do you think? If you have any thoughts on the matter, I’d be happy to hear them.

Thanks for reading.  More to come.

Janet Labuda: Global Trade – Expectations Under the New Administration

Posted on by

Vandegrift Blog – Global Trade – Expectations Under the New Administration November 28, 2016

FormerFedsGroup’s Janet Labuda gives us some insight on what importers can do to prepare for global trade under the new administration.

As always, continue to send us your comments and questions. We look forward to your feedback.  Janet can be reached at [email protected]

The 3C’s: Will President Trump Revive Section 2 of the Sherman Act?

Posted on by

by Leave a Comment

Below is a post by Brad Geyer, my partner at GeyerGorey LLP.  As you can tell from the title of the post, it is not the typical Cartel Capers fare, but you might find it interesting.

************************************************************ 

By Bradford L. Geyer [1]

When I concluded by summer of 2015 that our next President would be Donald Trump, my closest friends and associates were skeptical. Having grown up in the New York media market and reading the “Art of the Deal” after college, I studied Donald Trump because he was interesting. You are free to see it differently, but I see in President-Elect Trump as a strategic and tactical thinker who comes off as being spontaneous and off the cuff, but is actually in the third decade of his strategic plan. To read his books and to watch old videos shows a consistency in public policy views that is startling.

Few took President-Elect Trump seriously over the years in his statements about Antitrust, but like the protagonists in a movie, the best ones like to tell the antagonists that it’s coming.   Any mystery about President-Elect Trump’s Antitrust enforcement priorities should have been eliminated when in his “Gettysburg address” outlining his plans for his first 100 days, he blasted the media and turned his ire toward the Comcast / NBC Universal merger stating that the merged company is “trying to poison the mind of the American voter,” and said that the deal should never have been approved in the first place, and that it’s bad for democracy (here). He took his complaints further, promising action to prevent AT&T from buying Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, which he argued would concentrate too much power in one company (here). “We’ll look at breaking that deal up and other deals like it,” he vowed. “They’re trying to poison the mind of the American voter.”

President-Elect Trump has already been equally clear in expressing his thoughts about Amazon [2]:

Amazon has “a huge antitrust problem,” and (Jeff) Bezos (owner of the Washington Post and founder of Amazon.com) “thinks I would go after him for antitrust.”

– from the Twitter account of @realDonaldTrump (May 14, 2016)(here)

President-Elect Trump may have the most sophisticated view of Antitrust Law of any U.S. President in history. That experience was recently referenced by Emre N. Ilter in the National Law Review:

Mr. Trump was involved in three significant antitrust proceedings in the late 1980s and early 1990s. First, in 1988, Mr. Trump paid a $750,000 civil penalty to settle charges brought by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that he had violated the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (HSR Act) by acquiring stock in two companies without making timely HSR filings. Around the same time, Mr. Trump, as one of the owners of the New Jersey Generals US Football League team, was involved in a private antitrust suit against the National Football League (NFL)—a case that resulted in a jury verdict that the NFL had willfully acquired or maintained monopoly power in a market consisting of major league professional football in the United States, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Damages of $1, trebled to $3, were awarded. US Football League v. Nat’l Football League, 842 F.2d 1335 (2d Cir. 1988). Finally, Mr. Trump, in connection with his Atlantic City casinos, was sued by Boardwalk Properties, Inc. on numerous grounds including allegations that he had attempted to monopolize casino gambling and had conspired to suppress competition. After a lengthy legal battle, Mr. Trump prevailed. (here).

Combine experience, competition sophistication and seething intensity [3] and recognize that in the early 1980’s there were 50 media companies in the United States. Now that number is 6[4]. I suspect he believes there is a significant conscious parallelism among these six companies and there seems to be tight coordination and collaboration –a common gestalt — among these organizations on a host of issues. Call it a “thought cartel”. I would suggest that recent Wikileaks disclosures are likely to have reinforced this view among him and his team of advisors who may suspect that media companies are inducing lax regulation through maximizing the benefits of close relationships of its media figures with the political apparatus.[5]  Further, is President-Elect Trump viewing AT&T, Time Warner, Amazon, Comcast and even Google [6] individually as “media and information trusts”, as he finalizes his enforcement initiatives? My hunch is that he is and that each of these companies is at risk of enhanced enforcement attention.

It is clear that President Elect-Trump understands the power of the bully pulpit and he knows that if he can get AT&T and Time Warner to abort merger discussions before “the sheriff even rides into town” that means: 1) less work for him; 2) emboldened career civil service enforcers who were gearing up to make the case for blocking it; and 3) an enhanced perception of the Antitrust Division’s power. This, before he takes the oath of office in January, means enhanced leverage on day one.

I believe that it is possible he will pick a high visibility company, possibly on the crest of the wave of an aborted AT&T deal, to break up. So what potential “trust” will it be? Amazon has attracted criticism and controversy for years. Many of the criticisms are tied to allegations of anti-competitive or monopolistic behavior.  Does President-Elect Trump agree with Paul Krugman who recently penned, “Amazon.com, the giant online retailer, has too much power, and it uses that power in ways that hurt America.”[7]  Could the Department of Justice under the leadership of an Attorney General appointed by President-Elect Trump quite credibly take the view that Amazon is the Standard Oil Company or the AT&T or the Microsoft of its day [8] and bring an action to break it up?

I am certain that President-Elect Trump will announce that enforcement of the nation’s Antitrust Laws needs to be reinvigorated and that allegations of predatory pricing and attempts to monopolize certain sectors of the economy will not be tolerated. Some might expect that a Republican administration would line up alongside lax Section 2 enforcement. It is clear, however, that whatever else might be expected in a Trump administration, based on his statements throughout the campaign, consistency with Republican orthodoxy is not that thing and affected companies would be well served to increase their outside counsel budget.

***************************************************

1. Mr. Geyer is a partner in the Washington and Philadelphia-based law firm of GeyerGorey LLP. Prior to entering private practice he was a prosecutor in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice for 21 years. From 2007 through 2012 he served as the Antitrust Division’s Special Counsel to the Criminal Division involving “war zone” cases and investigations involving procurement fraud and grand fraud.

2.  President-Elect Trump on Hannity May 12, 2016 at 15:59 through 17:20. “[Jeff Bezos is] using the Washington Post . . . he’s using that for political purposes to save Amazon in terms of taxes and in terms of antitrust.

3.  Any member of the Antitrust defense bar who would like to get a flavor of what I suspect will be reinvigorated Antitrust Enforcement under a Trump administration would be well served to watch this video which shows Seth Rogan and President Obama roasting President Elect Trump in 2011. If you are like me, when you watch this video you see a ferocious Kodiak bear in a cage that is being poked with sticks. The Bear is not reacting, but you can tell he is going to bust out of the cage and tear the pokers to shreds … after he constructs an ingenious plan. There is something about his reaction that makes you feel uncomfortable from the first Rogan joke. You want to plead with the men with the sticks to “please just stop.”   You actually look in your hand to make sure you aren’t holding a stick and try to drop it anyway. That is called power and intensity and control. He has it and he knows how to use it.

4.  See, The Media Monopoly, 6th Edition, March 24, 2000, by Ben H. Bagdikian.

5.  For example, in an April 15, 2014 email released by WikiLeaks, Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, proposed that a $1.5 billion Clinton Campaign vehicle be formed that, among other things, to convert each voter to a single record that aggregates all that is known about them. Are enforcers entitled to wonder if voters across the country want to be converted into a record and whether this market share in this endeavor is aided by power in Google’s core businesses? Would Google’s relationship with the Clinton campaign team regenerate an interest in their potential antitrust issues as Europe has? (When enforcers read this email does it bring the movie, “the Clockwork Orange” to mind like it did for me?).

6.  See, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/31/technology/google-europe-antitrust.html

7.   See, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/opinion/paul-krugman-amazons-monopsony-is-not-ok.html?_r=0

8.   Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911); United States v. American Tel. and Tel. Co. , 552 F.Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982); United States v. Microsoft Corp. , 56 F.3d 1448 (D.C.Cir . 1995).

Ten California Real Estate Investors Exposed for Their Roles in Foreclosure Auction Racket

Posted on by

Washington, D.C.-  Multiple real estate investors from Eastern California face sentencing for their roles in a multi-faceted bid-rigging racket.  All ten of the named men face monetary fees upwards of $1 million for their actions while seven will be imprisoned for 6-12 months.

The DOJ post:

Ten Eastern California Real Estate Investors Sentenced for Roles in Bid-Rigging and Mail-Fraud Conspiracies Involving Real Estate Purchased at Public Foreclosure Auctions

More than $6 Million in Fines and Restitution Imposed

Ten Eastern California real estate investors were sentenced yesterday for their participation in conspiracies to rig bids and commit mail fraud at public real estate foreclosure auctions in Eastern California, the Department of Justice announced.

The primary purpose of the conspiracies was to suppress and restrain competition and to conceal payoffs in order to obtain selected real estate offered at San Joaquin County public foreclosure auctions at non-competitive prices.  When real estate properties are sold at these auctions, the proceeds are used to pay off the mortgage and other debt attached to the property, with remaining proceeds, if any, paid to the homeowner.  According to court documents, these conspirators paid and received money that otherwise would have gone to pay off the mortgage and other holders of debt secured by the properties.

“These defendants rigged foreclosure auctions to profit at the expense of mortgage holders and homeowners,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Renata Hesse of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division.  “Yesterday’s sentences send a strong message that conspiracies to eliminate competition in any area of our economy will not be tolerated.”

“My office will continue to fight real estate fraud in all its forms, including bringing to justice those who would subvert public foreclosure auctions for their own personal gain,” said Acting United States Attorney Phillip A. Talbert of the Eastern District of California.

The following individuals were sentenced in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in Sacramento:

  • Anthony B. Ghio of Stockton, California, was sentenced to serve five months in prison and ordered to pay a $1 million criminal fine and $214,544 in restitution to the victims of the crime.
  • John R. Vanzetti of Stockton, California, was sentenced to serve five months in prison and ordered to pay a $1 million criminal fine and $271,454 in restitution to the victims of the crime.
  • Theodore B. Hutz of Stockton, California, was sentenced to serve five months in prison and ordered to pay a $250,000 criminal fine and $76,670 in restitution to the victims of the crime.
  • Richard Northcutt of Stockton, California, was sentenced to serve seven months in prison and ordered to pay a $1 million criminal fine and $614,982 in restitution to the victims of the crime.
  • Kennen A. Swanger of Alta, California, was sentenced to serve five months in prison and ordered to pay a $5,000 criminal fine.
  • Wiley C. Chandler of Stockton, California, was sentenced to serve seven months in prison and ordered to pay a $500,000 criminal fine and $614,982 in restitution to the victims of the crime.
  • Walter Daniel Olmstead of San Francisco, California, was sentenced to serve eight months in prison and ordered to pay a $29,687 in restitution to the victims of the crime.
  • Gregory L. Jackson of Lodi, California, was sentenced to pay a $150,000 criminal fine and $20,900 in restitution to the victims of the crime.
  • Robert Rose of Danville, California, was sentenced to pay a $100,000 criminal fine and $24,128 in restitution to the victims of the crime.
  • Anthony B. Joachim of Stockton, California, was sentenced to pay a $175,000 criminal fine and $94,154 in restitution to the victims of the crime.

Two other real estate investors, Andrew B. Katakis and Donald M. Parker, were convicted at trial of bid rigging in March 2014.

A total of thirteen individuals pleaded guilty or were convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in connection with this investigation.  The sentences announced yesterday resulted from an ongoing investigation being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco office, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California, the FBI’s Sacramento Division and the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office.

GeyerGorey LLP

GeyerGorey LLP is experienced in working with clients to successfully resolve the toughest, most complicated white collar criminal investigations, including FCPA, frauds including grant fraud and procurement fraud, and competition matters including antitrust and anti-dumping cases. Our partners all have over 20 years of senior level experience with the US Department of Justice and deep expertise in the field of federal white collar crimes. We know how the government’s enforcement agencies think and what they look for in these types of investigations. We use these insights to help our clients mount an effective and efficient defense that specifically addresses any red flags that federal agents look for when conducting an investigation. If your organization is under investigation, or you are concerned that an investigation may be launched, GeyerGorey LLP may be the right firm for you. Call Now +1 (888) 293-0644

DOJ Announces Plan to Improve Forensic Practitioners’ “Professional Responsibility”

Posted on by

Washington, D.C.-  The Department of Justie announces new steps to improve “professional responsibility” among forensics practitioners.

 The DOJ announcement:

Justice Department Announces New Steps to Advance and Strengthen Forensic Science

Changes Include New Code of Professional Responsibility for Practice of Forensic Science

The Department of Justice announced new steps today as part of its ongoing commitment to strengthening and advancing forensic science.  The department will implement a number of steps that will promote professional responsibility among forensics practitioners, institute best practices and advance the relationship between the academic research of forensic science and implementation in the field.

“Today’s announcement marks yet another step forward in the department’s efforts to strengthen the practice of forensic science in our nation’s laboratories and courtrooms,” said Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates.  “We are continually looking at ways to ensure that forensic evidence is collected, analyzed and presented in a responsible and scientifically rigorous manner.”

The new policies include adopting a new code of professional responsibility that builds upon existing policies and accreditation requirements for departmental forensic examiners and laboratories. The department believes the code will improve education and guidance on professional responsibility while establishing a process for identifying and addressing violations of professional conduct.

Department forensic laboratories will also review their policies and procedures to ensure that forensic examiners are not using the expressions “reasonable scientific certainty” or “reasonable (forensic discipline) certainty” in their reports or testimony.  Department prosecutors will also abstain from using these expressions when presenting forensic reports or questioning forensic experts in court unless required by a judge or applicable law.  This decision complements the department’s efforts, announced earlier this year, to provide better guidance to forensic examiners and federal prosecutors on how to properly characterize the strength of forensic evidence in the courtroom.

The department also announced policies to implement greater transparency and access to forensic laboratory quality assurance documents and a plan to explore a grant funding of multiyear post-doctoral fellowships at federal, state and local forensic science service providers and forensic medicine service providers.

The new policies arose out of recommendations made by the National Commission of Forensic Science, which was established to advance the field of forensic science and make suggestions to the Attorney General on how to ensure that reliable and scientifically valid evidence is used when solving crimes.  The Attorney General’s decision to implement several of the commission’s recommendations was announced at a meeting of the commission today.  A memo was also sent to all department component heads directing the implementation of the recommendations.  Additional information on the department’s ongoing work to strengthen forensic science can be found at www.justice.gov/forensics.

 

GeyerGorey LLP 

GeyerGorey LLP is experienced in working with clients to successfully resolve the toughest, most complicated white collar criminal investigations, including FCPA, frauds including grant fraud and procurement fraud, and competition matters including antitrust and anti-dumping cases. Our partners all have over 20 years of senior level experience with the US Department of Justice and deep expertise in the field of federal white collar crimes. We know how the government’s enforcement agencies think and what they look for in these types of investigations. We use these insights to help our clients mount an effective and efficient defense that specifically addresses any red flags that federal agents look for when conducting an investigation. If your organization is under investigation, or you are concerned that an investigation may be launched, GeyerGorey LLP may be the right firm for you. Call Now +1 (888) 293-0644

Two Medicare Companies to Forfeit Total of $12 Million to Settle False Claim Allegations

Posted on by

Cinnaminson, NJ- Two medical equipment companies and their brother-CEOs will forfeit a grand total of $12 million to settle False Claims allegations. Both companies, U.S. Healthcare Supply LLC and Oxford Diabetic Supply Inc., made unrequested phone calls to Medicare beneficiaries , seeking to sell them unnecessary medical equipment.

The DOJ post on the matter:

Diabetic Medical Equipment Companies to Pay More Than $12 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations

U.S. Healthcare Supply LLC and Oxford Diabetic Supply Inc. and the two owners and presidents of those companies have agreed to pay the United States more than $12.2 million to resolve allegations that they violated the federal False Claims Act by using a fictitious entity to make unsolicited telephone calls to Medicare beneficiaries in order to sell them durable medical equipment, the U.S. Department of Justice announced.  U.S. Healthcare Supply LLC, based in Milford, New Jersey, has agreed to pay more than $5 million, and Jon P. Letko, its owner and president, has agreed to pay more than $1 million.  His brother, Edward J. Letko, the owner and president of Oxford Diabetic Supply Inc., a medical equipment supplier that allegedly also participated in the scheme, has agreed to pay $6 million plus interest.

“We will continue to hold health care providers accountable for attempting to circumvent Medicare statutes and regulations that help prevent the submission of claims for medically unnecessary services and supplies,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division.  “Arrangements which clearly disregard program requirements in order to enhance the financial interests of health care providers will not be tolerated.”

“Cold-calling people to sell them expensive medical equipment is prohibited for a reason: unsuspecting patients shouldn’t be coerced into making medical decisions about devices and equipment – which they may not even need – on the basis of a sales pitch,” said U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman for the District of New Jersey.

The settlement announced today resolves allegations that U.S. Healthcare Supply LLC and Oxford Diabetic Supply Inc. set up and controlled an entity called Diabetic Experts Inc., which they used to make unsolicited telephone calls to Medicare beneficiaries in order to sell them durable medical equipment.  The companies submitted claims to Medicare for the equipment that they sold based on these unsolicited calls.  This conduct violated the Medicare Anti-Solicitation Statute.

This settlement illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and marks another achievement for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced in May 2009 by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  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 $30.5 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $18.4 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.

 

 

GeyerGorey LLP is experienced in working with clients to successfully resolve the toughest, most complicated white collar criminal investigations, including FCPA, frauds including grant fraud and procurement fraud, and competition matters including antitrust and anti-dumping cases. Our partners all have over 20 years of senior level experience with the US Department of Justice and deep expertise in the field of federal white collar crimes. We know how the government’s enforcement agencies think and what they look for in these types of investigations. We use these insights to help our clients mount an effective and efficient defense that specifically addresses any red flags that federal agents look for when conducting an investigation. If your organization is under investigation, or you are concerned that an investigation may be launched, GeyerGorey LLP may be the right firm for you. Call Now +1 (888) 293-0644

U.S. Gov Awards $1.5 Million in Lost CAFRA Suit, article and more below

Posted on by

Washington, D.C.-  The former Taiwanese First Family has won $1.5 million from the U.S. after filing a CAFRA suit, per DOJ.  Preceding the suit, the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement launched a bilateral initiative to investigate the family’s purchase of a New York City, NY condominium and Keswick, VA Estate (amounting to the aforementioned $1.5 million).  The HSI-ICE team discovered the properties were acquired via bribe dollars, tracing back to a 2004 payout from a Taiwanese banker, Yuanta Securities, in exchange for the then-presidency’s competition protection.  Although the First Family used a series of shell companies and offshore accounts to hide the source of the funds, the HSI-ICE team confiscated the properties upon exposition of the bribery.  

The DOJ article regarding the case is reproduced below with its original link following.

United States Returns $1.5 Million in Forfeited Proceeds from Sale of Property Purchased with Alleged Bribes Paid to Family of Former President of Taiwan

The Department of Justice announced today that it is returning approximately $1.5 million to Taiwan, the proceeds of the sale of a forfeited New York condominium and a Virginia residence that the United States alleged in its complaint were purchased with the proceeds of bribes paid to the family of Taiwan’s former President Chen Shui-Bian.

Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and Executive Associate Director Peter T. Edge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) made the announcement.

According to the civil forfeiture complaints filed in this case, Yuanta Securities Co. Ltd. paid a bribe of 200 million New Taiwan dollars (equivalent to approximately $6 million USD) to former First Lady Wu Shu-Jen in 2004, during former President Chen Shui-Bian’s administration.  The bribe was allegedly paid to ensure that the president would use his power so that the Taiwan authorities would not oppose Yuanta’s bid to acquire a financial holding company.  The former first family used Hong Kong and Swiss bank accounts, shell companies and a St. Kitts and Nevis trust to transfer the bribe proceeds needed to purchase the properties in Keswick, Virginia, and New York.  The properties were owned by the former first family of Taiwan through two limited liability companies.  In October 2012, U.S. District Courts in Virginia and in New York entered final forfeiture judgments against these two properties without opposition by the record owners.  The United States then sold these two properties and obtained approximately $1.5 million in proceeds, which is being returned to Taiwan.

“The Kleptocracy Initiative was established to prevent corrupt leaders from using the United States as a safe haven for their ill-gotten gains,” said Assistant Attorney General Caldwell.  “We are committed to rooting out foreign official corruption and preventing corrupt officials from enjoying their spoils in the United States.  We appreciate the cooperation of Taiwan law enforcement in this matter.”

“After many years of collaborative work, we are happy to return these funds to their rightful owners,” said Executive Associate Director Edge.  “This is part of an ongoing effort by HSI to identify and seize illegal assets in the United States obtained by corrupt foreign leaders who abuse our financial systems in order to conceal the illicit proceeds of their crimes.  HSI special agents in our 62 offices in 43 countries will continue to work with our domestic offices and international law enforcement partners to hold these individuals accountable.”

ICE-HSI investigated the case, with assistance from the agency’s attaché in Hong Kong, HSI Miami’s Foreign Corruption Investigation Group and the Taiwan Supreme Prosecutors Office’s Special Investigations Division.  Trial Attorney Jennifer Wallis and former Deputy Chief Linda Samuel of the Criminal Division’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS) prosecuted the case.  The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs also provided valuable assistance.

The Justice Department’s Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative is carried out by a dedicated team of prosecutors in AFMLS, working in partnership with federal law enforcement agencies to forfeit the proceeds of foreign official corruption and, where appropriate, return those proceeds to benefit those harmed.  Individuals with information about possible proceeds of foreign corruption located in or laundered through institutions in the United States should contact federal law enforcement or send an email to [email protected]

HSI’s Foreign Corruption Investigations Group targets corrupt foreign officials around the world who attempt to utilize U.S. financial institutions to launder illicit funds.  The group conducts investigations into the laundering of proceeds emanating from foreign public corruption, bribery or embezzlement.  The objective is to prevent foreign derived ill-gotten gains from entering the U.S. financial infrastructure, to seize identified assets in the United States and repatriate these funds on behalf of those affected.
Original Link

ABA Announces First Antitrust Sentencing Symposium, Robert Connolly on Panel

Posted on by

Cinnaminson, NJ-  With goals of streamlining the antitrust sentencing process while also assessing better ways to achieve deterrence, the ABA has announced its first Antitrust Sentencing Symposium.  Robert Connolly, a chosen board member for the conference, reports on the aims of the symposium in a post from his blog, Cartel Capers:

2016 Antitrust Sentencing Symposium

 by  Leave a Comment

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.

  • Isn’t there a better way to reach the goal of deterrence?
  • Have we reached a tipping point with the size of the fines imposed on corporate antitrust defendants?
  • Are there options to increasingly longer jail sentences for individual antitrust offenders to reach optimal deterrence?
  • Does it continue to make sense to provide for treble damages in follow-on private damage actions where prima facie liability is established?

I am on a panel, Are There Alternatives to Increasingly Longer Jail Sentences for Antitrust Offenders That Would Lead to More Optimal Deterrence? moderated by Kathryn Hellings, partner at Hogan Lovells LLP, and includes Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and Brent Snyder, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Enforcement, Antitrust Division, USDOJ. The full roster of faculty can be found here.

My contribution to the symposium will be a paper arguing that the ABA Antitrust Section should form a task force to study guideline reform, mirrored along the lines of the Criminal Justice Section Task Force on the Reform of Federal Sentencing for Economic Crimes.  I believe the current antitrust sentencing guidelines for individuals, departed from at a rate approaching 100%, are an impediment to optimal deterrence.  I hope the discussions at the Symposium will generate follow-up study to reform the United States Sentencing Guidelines for Antitrust Offenses. U.S.S.G 2R1.1.

You can register for the event here.  The program is quite a bargain.  It is free for ABA Antitrust Section members and includes 6.25 CLE credits.  This is the first ever ABA Antitrust Sentencing Symposium and your participation and input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for reading.

Original link to Robert Connolly’s post

Cartel Capers blog

Greentech Inc, OSI Pharmaceuticals Face $67 Million Settlement Fine, $10 Million to Whistleblower

Posted on by

Washington, D.C.-  Whistleblower Brian Shields of Greentech Inc. ignites investigations of Greentech Inc (San Francisco, CA) and OSI Pharmaceuticals LLC (Farmingdale, NY) following exposure of information into False Claims Act violations.  Both companies are alleged to have skewed reports of efficacy for anti-lung cancer drug Tarceva for the sake of kickback profit.  The two companies are now facing a $67 million settlement fee, $10 million of which will be rewarded to whistleblower Shields in accordance to SEC’s whistleblower program.

The original article is reproduced below with its link following.

 

Pharmaceutical Companies to Pay $67 Million To Resolve False Claims Act Allegations Relating to Tarceva

Pharmaceutical companies Genentech Inc. and OSI Pharmaceuticals LLC will pay $67 million to resolve False Claims Act allegations that they made misleading statements about the effectiveness of the drug Tarceva to treat non-small cell lung cancer, the Department of Justice announced today.  Genentech, located in South San Francisco, California, and OSI Pharmaceuticals, located in Farmingdale, New York, co-promote Tarceva, which is approved to treat certain patients with non-small cell lung cancer or pancreatic cancer.  OSI Pharmaceuticals LLC is the successor to OSI Pharmaceuticals Inc., which was acquired by Astellas Holding US Inc. in 2010 and converted to a limited liability company in 2011.

“Pharmaceutical companies have a responsibility to provide accurate information to patients and health care providers about their prescription drugs,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division.  “The Department of Justice will hold those companies accountable that mislead the public about the efficacy of their products.”

The settlement resolves allegations that, between January 2006 and December 2011,  Genentech and OSI Pharmaceuticals made misleading representations to physicians and other health care providers about the effectiveness of Tarceva to treat certain patients with non-small cell lung cancer, when there was little evidence to show that Tarceva was effective to treat those patients unless they also had never smoked or had a mutation in their epidermal growth factor receptor, which is a protein involved in the growth and spread of cancer cells.

As a result of today’s $67 million settlement, the federal government will receive $62.6 million and state Medicaid programs will receive $4.4 million.  The Medicaid program is funded jointly by the state and federal governments.

“This settlement demonstrates the government’s unwavering commitment to pursue violations of the False Claims Act and recover taxpayer dollars spent as a result of misleading marketing campaigns,” said U.S. Attorney Brian Stretch for the Northern District of California.

“Pharmaceutical companies that make misleading or unsubstantiated statements about their products can put patients at risk,” said Deputy Commissioner Howard R. Sklamberg for FDA’s global regulatory operations and policy. “The FDA will continue to work to protect the public’s health by ensuring that companies do not mislead healthcare providers about their products.”

“Drug manufacturers that make misleading claims about their product’s effectiveness can jeopardize the health of patients – in this case, cancer patients,” said Special Agent in Charge Steven J. Ryan for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG).  “Our agency will continue to protect both patients and taxpayers by holding those who engage in such practices accountable for their actions.”

The settlement resolves allegations filed in a lawsuit by former Genentech employee Brian Shields, in federal court in San Francisco.  The lawsuit was filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private individuals to sue on behalf of the government for false claims and to share in any recovery.  Shields will receive approximately $10 million.

This settlement illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and marks another achievement for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced in May 2009 by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  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 $29.8 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $18.2 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.

The settlement is the result of a coordinated effort by the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, with assistance from the HHS-OIG, the HHS Office of Counsel to the Inspector General, the HHS Office of the General Counsel-CMS Division, the FDA’s Office Chief Counsel, the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations, the Office of the Inspector General for the Office of Personnel Management, the FBI, the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General, the Office of the General Counsel for the Defense Health Agency and the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units.

The case is captioned United States ex rel. Shields v. Genentech, Inc., et al., Case No.  CV 11 0822 MEJ (N.D. Ca.).  The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

Original Link