Author Archives: Brad Geyer

Four People Arrested and Charged in Cross-Country Insider Trading Scheme

Posted on by

The owner and operator of a stock trading operation and three of his associates were arrested today on charges arising from their alleged participation in a multi-year insider trading scheme that netted more than $3.2 million in illicit profits, announced today by U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman for the District of New Jersey.

Steven Fishoff, 58, of Westlake Village, California, Ronald Chernin, 66, of Oak Park, California, Steven Costantin aka Steven Constantin, 54, of Farmingdale, New Jersey, and Paul Petrello, 53, of Boca Raton, Florida, are each charged by complaint with one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud.  Fishoff is charged with four substantive counts of securities fraud, Chernin and Petrello are each charged with two counts of securities fraud and Costantin is charged with one count of securities fraud.

The defendants were arrested by FBI agents this morning at their respective residences.  Costantin is scheduled to appear this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson in Newark, New Jersey, federal court.  Fishoff is scheduled to appear before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato in Riverside, California, federal court, Chernin is scheduled to appear before U.S. Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle in Los Angeles, Californina, federal court, and Petrello is expected to appear before U.S. Magistrate Judge Dave Lee Brannon in West Palm Beach, Florida, federal court.

“The defendants and their associates were entrusted with confidential, nonpublic information about companies and time and time again, they allegedly violated that trust by illegally trading the companies’ stock for substantial profits,” said U.S. Attorney Fishman.  “They allegedly rigged the game so they would always win, and their profits came at the expense of legitimate investors, who were not privy to this inside information.”

“Insider trading is an investigative priority of the FBI,” said Special Agent in Charge Richard M. Frankel for the FBI in Newark, New Jersey.  “The FBI is committed to stopping insider trading and will hold those who perpetrate these schemes accountable because their illegal activities undermine the integrity of the U.S. financial markets and weaken investor confidence.”

“We allege an insider trading scheme based on a short-selling business model designed to systematically profit on confidential information obtained under false pretenses,” said Senior Associate Director Sanjay Wadhwa for Enforcement in the SEC’s Regional Office in New York.  “But the defendants’ short selling proved to be short-sighted as they overlooked the fact that their trading patterns would be detected and they would be caught by law enforcement.”

According to the complaint unsealed today, Fishoff, Chernin, Costantin, Petrello and others, acting individually and through their associated trading entities, engaged in an insider trading scheme in which they netted more than $3.2 million in illicit profits over three years by executing illegal trades through trading entities that they controlled.

Fishoff is the president and sole owner of Featherwood Capital Inc. (Featherwood), a trading entity that he operates out of his home.  Featherwood maintained numerous stock trading accounts in its own name and in various additional names under which Featherwood did business (DBAs), including Gold Coast Total Return Inc. (Gold Coast), Seaside Capital Inc. (Seaside) and Data Complete Inc. (Data Complete).

Chernin, an attorney who was disbarred in California for misappropriation of client assets, is a friend and longtime business associate of Fishoff.  Corporate documents list Chernin as the president of Gold Coast and Fishoff as an officer.  Chernin is president of the trading entity Cedar Lane Enterprises Inc. (Cedar Lane) and an officer of Data Complete.

Costantin, a former pipefitter by trade, is Fishoff’s brother-in-law and a friend and business associate of Chernin.  Corporate documents list Costanstin as president of Seaside.  In brokerage account documents, Fishoff identifies himself as Seaside’s owner.  Costanstin is also the vice president and secretary of Cedar Lane.

Petrello is the president and owner of two trading entities, Brielle Properties Inc. and Oceanview Property Management LLC and a friend and longtime business associate of Fishoff.

On numerous occasions, the conspirators obtained material, nonpublic information related to publicly traded companies and traded on that information before it became public.  Between June 2010 and July 2013, Fishoff, Chernin, Costantin and a business associate referred to in the complaint as “Trader A” expressed interest in participating in at least 14 stock offerings by publicly traded companies.  Before providing these individuals with confidential information concerning the companies or the terms of the proposed sales, the investment bankers first required that Fishoff, Chernin, Costantin, Trader A and their associated trading entities, agree to be “brought over the wall,” or “wall-crossed,” standard industry terms which meant that they were required to keep the information disclosed to them confidential and could not buy or sell the stock based on the information.

Fishoff, Chernin, Costantin and Trader A agreed to these disclosure and trading restrictions and then flagrantly breached the agreements.  In instances where Fishoff was not personally wall-crossed in an offering, Chernin and Costantin tipped Fishoff telephonically or by email about the offering prior to the public announcement.  Even where Fishoff ostensibly was a party to the confidentiality agreement, through his affiliation with the wall-crossed trading entity, Fishoff himself breached the agreement by trading on the confidential information and by providing the information to Petrello so that Petrello could engage in parallel trading.  There were also instances where Chernin and Costantin violated the terms of the confidentiality agreements by trading themselves before the offering.  The conspirators traded through the accounts of the trading entities or through related accounts that they controlled.  The conspirators shared the proceeds of the insider trading scheme, with Fishoff wiring money to Chernin and Costantin for their services and Fishoff receiving compensation from Petrello for the offering-related tips that Fishoff provided to him.

The conspiracy count with which each defendant is charged carries a maximum potential penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, or twice the aggregate loss to victims or gain to the defendants.   Each of the substantive securities fraud charges carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $5 million fine.

U.S. Attorney Fishman credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Frankel, for the investigation leading to today’s arrests and complaint.  He also thanked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s New York Regional Office under the direction of Andrew Calamari.  He also thanked special agents of the FBI, Los Angeles (Ventura Resident Agency and Riverside Resident Agency) and FBI, Miami (West Palm Beach Resident Agency) for their assistance.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Shirley U. Emehelu of the Economic Crimes Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Newark, New Jersey and Acting Chief Barbara Ward for the of the Office’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Unit.

The charges and allegations contained in the complaint are merely accusations and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

This case was brought in coordination with President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force.  The task force was established to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes.  With more than 20 federal agencies, 94 U.S. Attorneys’ offices and state and local partners, it’s the broadest coalition of law enforcement, investigatory and regulatory agencies ever assembled to combat fraud.  Since its formation, the task force has made great strides in facilitating increased investigation and prosecution of financial crimes; enhancing coordination and cooperation among federal, state and local authorities; addressing discrimination in the lending and financial markets and conducting outreach to the public, victims, financial institutions and other organizations.  Over the past three fiscal years, the Justice Department has filed nearly 10,000 financial fraud cases against nearly 15,000 defendants including more than 2,900 mortgage fraud defendants.  For more information on the task force, please visit www.stopfraud.gov

CCC’s: Some Thoughts On Compliance and Other Issues Raised by the Forex Guilty Pleas

Posted on by

by

It’s been almost two weeks since the Department of Justice announced its plea agreements in the Forex investigation. To recap the highlights, in his remarks announcing the case filings, Bill Baer Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division said (here):

Today’s guilty pleas to criminal charges represent major developments in our investigation into collusion affecting foreign exchange markets, particularly the spot market for trading U.S. dollars and euros. The antitrust guilty pleas announced today involving four major international financial institutions – Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase, The Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays – are without precedent. In light of the seriousness of the crimes and the unjustified benefit to the bottom lines of these banks, we demanded parent-level guilty pleas, secured record fines of more than $2.5 billion and insisted upon three years of court-supervised probation.

In addition, UBS agreed to plead guilty to a violation in the Libor market. UBS had previously received non-prosecution protection in the Libor investigation, but that protection was withdrawn in light of UBS’s participation in the Forex cartel.

Since the news of the case filings first broke, I’ve had some additional thoughts on the matter.  First, I want to give a big pat on the back to my former colleague, Joe Muoio, who signed the pleadings on behalf of the Antitrust Division. Joe and I worked together for many years in the now closed Philadelphia Field office. Joe was the Assistant Chief and transferred to the New York Field office when the Philadelphia office was closed in 2013. The Forex investigation was a team effort (a large international team, no doubt) and there could not have a better team leader than Joe.   Congratulations to Joe and the rest of the team.

The Forex plea agreements have two noteworthy departures from previous pleas in the financial sector. For the first time, the Antitrust Division acknowledged giving credit to a company for implementing an effective compliance program after the start of the investigation. Little has been revealed about what made Barclay’s compliance program effective, why the Division chose to give credit in this case, and what the value of the credit given to Barclays was?  The plea agreements states only: “The parties further agree that Recommended Sentence is sufficient, but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3572(a), in considering, among other factors, the substantial improvements to the defendant’s compliance and remediation program to prevent recurrence of the charged offense.”  This language, while limited, is still an important first step for the Antitrust Division to acknowledge (and thereby encourage) implementation of effective antitrust compliance programs. The Antitrust Division does not make changes in policy lightly and it is likely they will have more to say about this development in future speeches.

Another noteworthy fact about the Forex plea agreements is that the Antitrust Division required pleas from the parent company. Previously, in most situations where financial institutions have been charged in Forex and Libor, the plea has come from a foreign subsidiary to avoid the collateral consequences that would flow from a conviction of a publicly traded company. Requiring the parent to plead was a relatively small step, however, as the pleas were only entered after waivers were secured from the SEC.  The banks wanted assurances from U.S. regulators that they would not be barred from certain businesses before agreeing to plead guilty to criminal charges. (here). The defendants received the desired waivers.

Public Reaction

The historic pleas have not been without some public criticism. An example is an editorial in the New York Times titled: “Banks as Felons, Or Criminality Lite”

Besides the criminal label, however, nothing much has changed for the banks. And that means nothing much has changed for the public. There is no meaningful accountability in the plea deals and, by extension, no meaningful deterrence from future wrongdoing.”

SEC Commission, Kara M. Stein, was harsh in her dissent from the grant of waivers to the recidivist banks.

Allowing these institutions to continue business as usual, after multiple and serious regulatory and criminal violations, poses risks to investors and the American public that are being ignored. It is not sufficient to look at each waiver request in a vacuum.

And, in an article in USA Today (here), four leading antitrust commentators who are not usually found to be in agreement (Judge Douglas Ginsburg, FTC Commission Josh Wright and Albert Foer and Professor Robert H. Lande of the American Antitrust Institute) called for harsher penalties against individuals convicted of antitrust offenses.

Some thoughts on Compliance

As already noted, the Antitrust Division took a big step forward in encouraging the implementation of effective compliance programs. Hopefully, more details will be forthcoming about why now? What was it about Barclays’ program that was considered effective? And what was the monetary benefit for the compliance program.

The Division’s encouragement of an effective compliance program should be bolstered by the sheer magnitude of the fines and other consequences of these guilty pleas. In the compliance world, FCPA is “Top Dog” in terms of compliance resources and attention. No doubt issues like vetting third-party vendors worldwide rightfully account for this attention. But the consequences of an antitrust offense call out for an equally keen focus on antitrust compliance. I’ve written about this before (here), but the combination of huge fines, jails sentences for individuals, investigation by multiple U.S. agencies, and competition agencies around the world, and the significant damages paid out in civil class action lawsuits make a compelling case for robust antitrust compliance efforts.

Indeed, the Antitrust Division’s plea agreements with the other banks besides Barclays call for devoting resources to compliance programs:

“The defendant shall implement and shall continue to implement a compliance program designed to prevent and detect the conduct set forth in Paragraph 4 (g)-(i) above and, absent appropriate disclosure, the conduct in Paragraph 13 below throughout its operations including those of its affiliates and subsidiaries and provide an annual report to the probation officer and the United States on its progress in implementing the program, commencing on a schedule agreed to by the parties.”

The plea agreements, however, do not call for external compliance monitors. Given that the cartel involved billions of dollars, the brazen nature of the crime (the conspirators referred to themselves in private chat rooms as the “Cartel Club” and “The Mafia,” and finally, the degree of recidivism, one wonders (OK, I wonder) why no external compliance monitors? The Division sought (and received from the court) external compliance monitors in the Apple case, (a civil violation) and in AU Optronics (a first offense).  Unless the Antitrust Division provides further guidance, it appears that the only criteria for seeking an external monitor is if a company goes to trial against the Division and loses.

The Investigation Is Ongoing

There is some validity to the charge that the corporate fines are just a cost of doing business and don’t provide sufficient deterrent. Perhaps requiring a parent to plead was one step closer towards requiring a plea and no regulatory waivers. But fears of collateral damage to innocent employees (who would lose jobs), stockholders (who could be wiped out) and the economy in general make this a hard trigger to pull.  The real deterrent comes with prosecution of individuals—i.e., the guys in The Cartel or The Mafia, as they put it.   It is extremely likely that the Antitrust Division will seek charges against individuals in this case. The hard part is not so much prosecuting the traders who operated in the chat rooms and left a trail of evidence, but in determining if knowledge of the cartel went higher up in the banks. Holding the highest-level person in an organization responsible for the crime is the highest deterrence. But, this is challenging as superiors are often shielded from direct involvement in the crime and can only be convicted on the basis of the testimony of subordinates whose credibility may be compromised by their own plea. The public often cries for higher level executives to be held accountable, but juries take seriously their obligation to convict only where the proof establishes guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

There will be much more to this story so stay tuned. Thanks for reading.

CCC’s: My Antitrust Spring Meeting Interview with Capitol Forum

Posted on by

by

During the ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting, I had the good fortune to be interviewed by David Blotner, Senior Editor of the Capitol Forum. The Capitol Forum is an in-depth news and analysis service dedicated to informing policymakers, investors, and industry stakeholders on how policy affects market competition. The Capitol Forum provides in-depth coverage of major antitrust matters such as the now abandoned Comcast-Time Warner merger. I was delighted to be asked to speak about cartel issues. David and I have known each other for years. He also was a career Antitrust Division prosecutor. And while I’m no Nostradamus, we did discuss the Forex investigation which just had big news yesterday. If you have a few minutes (around 27) here is a link to the video. And check out the Capitol Forum website, as well as their blog, for the complete coverage they offer.

Thanks for reading (or watching if you have the time).

REAL ESTATE INVESTOR PLEADS GUILTY TO BID RIGGING

Posted on by

WASHINGTON — A Georgia real estate investor pleaded guilty today for his role in conspiracies to rig bids and commit mail fraud at public real estate foreclosure auctions in Georgia, the Department of Justice announced.

Felony charges against Eric Hulsman were filed on March 27, 2015, in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta.  According to court documents, from at least as early March 6, 2007, and continuing at least until Dec. 6, 2011, in Fulton County, Georgia, and from at least as early as Jan. 2, 2007, and continuing at least until Jan. 1, 2008, in DeKalb County, Georgia, Hulsman conspired with others not to bid against one another, but instead designated a winning bidder to obtain selected properties at public real estate foreclosure auctions.  Hulsman was also charged with a conspiracy to use the mail to carry out a scheme to fraudulently acquire title to selected Fulton and DeKalb properties sold at public auctions, to make and receive payoffs and to divert money to co-conspirators that would have gone to mortgage holders and others by holding second, private auctions open only to members of the conspiracy.  The selected properties were then awarded to the conspirators who submitted the highest bids in the second, private auctions.

“Homeowners and lenders in Fulton and DeKalb counties deserved free and fair public real estate foreclosure auctions,” said Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division.  “The defendant conspired with others to keep for themselves money that should have gone to those homeowners and lenders.  The division remains committed to rooting out this kind of anticompetitive conduct at foreclosure auctions.”

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 Fulton and DeKalb 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, and in some cases, the defaulting homeowner.

“Today’s guilty plea of another real estate investor engaged in unfair bidding practices is further evidence of the FBI’s support for the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division in ensuring that public foreclosure auctions remain a level playing field for all,” said Special Agent in Charge J. Britt Johnson of the FBI’s Atlanta Field Office.  “Anyone with information regarding such criminal activities as seen in this case should promptly call their nearest FBI field office.”

A violation of the Sherman Act carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine for individuals.  The maximum fine for a Sherman Act charge 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.  A count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine in an amount equal to the greatest of $250,000, twice the gross gain the conspirators derived from the crime or twice the gross loss caused to the victims of the crime by the conspirators.

Including Hulsman, eight cases have been filed as a result of the ongoing investigation being conducted by Antitrust Division’s Washington Criminal II Section and the FBI’s Atlanta Division, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Northern District of Georgia.  Anyone with information concerning bid rigging or fraud related to public real estate foreclosure auctions in Georgia should contact Washington Criminal II Section of the Antitrust Division at 202-598-4000, call the Antitrust Division’s Citizen Complaint Center at 1-888-647-3258 or visit www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm.

The charges were brought in connection with the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force.  The task force was established to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes.  With more than 20 federal agencies, 94 U.S. attorneys’ offices, and state and local partners, it’s the broadest coalition of law enforcement, investigatory and regulatory agencies ever assembled to combat fraud.  Since its formation, the task force has made great strides in facilitating increased investigation and prosecution of financial crimes; enhancing coordination and cooperation among federal, state and local authorities; addressing discrimination in the lending and financial markets; and conducting outreach to the public, victims, financial institutions and other organizations.  Since fiscal year 2009, the Justice Department has filed over 18,000 financial fraud cases against more than 25,000 defendants.  For more information on the task force, please visit www.StopFraud.gov.

Seller of “Miracle Mineral Solution” Convicted for Marketing Toxic Chemical as a Miracle Cure

Posted on by

A federal jury in the Eastern District of Washington returned a guilty verdict yesterday against a Spokane, Washington, man for selling industrial bleach as a miracle cure for numerous diseases and illnesses, including cancer, AIDS, malaria, hepatitis, lyme disease, asthma and the common cold, the Department of Justice announced.

Louis Daniel Smith, 45, was convicted following a seven-day trial of conspiracy, smuggling, selling misbranded drugs and defrauding the United States. Evidence at trial showed that Smith operated a business called “Project GreenLife” (PGL) from 2007 to 2011.  PGL sold a product called “Miracle Mineral Supplement,” or MMS, over the Internet.  MMS is a mixture of sodium chlorite and water.  Sodium chlorite is an industrial chemical used as a pesticide and for hydraulic fracking and wastewater treatment.  Sodium chlorite cannot be sold for human consumption and suppliers of the chemical include a warning sheet stating that it can cause potentially fatal side effects if swallowed.

“This verdict demonstrates that the Department of Justice will prosecute those who sell dangerous chemicals as miracle cures to sick people and their desperate loved ones,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer of the Justice Department’s Civil Division.  “Consumers have the right to expect that the medicines that they purchase are safe and effective.”  Mizer thanked the jury for its service and its careful consideration of the evidence.

The government presented evidence that Smith instructed consumers to combine MMS with citric acid to create chlorine dioxide, add water and drink the resulting mixture to cure numerous illnesses. Chlorine dioxide is a potent agent used to bleach textiles, among other industrial applications.  Chlorine dioxide is a severe respiratory and eye irritant that can cause nausea, diarrhea and dehydration.  According to the instructions for use that Smith provided with his product, nausea, diarrhea and vomiting were all signs that the miracle cure was working.  The instructions also stated that despite a risk of possible brain damage, the product might still be appropriate for pregnant women or infants who were seriously ill.

According to the evidence presented at trial, Smith created phony “water purification” and “wastewater treatment” businesses in order to obtain sodium chlorite and ship his MMS without being detected by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  The government also presented evidence that Smith hid evidence from FDA inspectors and destroyed evidence while law enforcement agents were executing search warrants on his residence and business.

Before trial, three of Smith’s alleged co-conspirators, Chris Olson, Tammy Olson and Karis DeLong, Smith’s wife, pleaded guilty to introducing misbranded drugs into interstate commerce.  Chris Olson, along with alleged co-conspirators Matthew Darjanny and Joseph Lachnit, testified at trial that Smith was the leader of PGL.

In all, the jury convicted Smith of one count of conspiracy to commit multiple crimes, three counts of introducing misbranded drugs into interstate commerce with intent to defraud or mislead and one count of fraudulently smuggling merchandise into the United States.  The jury found Smith not guilty on one out of four of the misbranded drug counts. He faces a statutory maximum of 34 years in prison at his Sept. 9 sentencing.

The case was investigated by agents of the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.  The case was prosecuted by Christopher E. Parisi and Timothy T. Finley of the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branchin Washington, D.C.

3C’s: Thomas Farmer Acquitted in Puerto Rico Shipping Price Fixing Trial

Posted on by

by Leave a Comment

After a three-week trial, Thomas Farmer, a former Crowley Liner Services Vice-President was acquitted of price-fixing and bid rigging charges by a jury in Puerto Rico. The trial was before Federal District Court Judge Daniel Dominguez. The jury was composed of six men and six women. They deliberated for three hours before returning their verdict. Framer had been indicted on March 21, 2013 on a charge of conspiracy to fix and rig Puerto Rico freight surcharges with counterparts from Horizon Lines and Sea Star Line in the U.S. mainland-Puerto Rico trade.

The acquittal marks the end of the Antitrust Division’s otherwise successful investigation into price-fixing on ocean shipping route between Puerto Rico and the United States. Farmer was the second executive to go to trial. Frank Peake, the former President of Sea Star, was convicted in 2013 on a similar charge (here). Peake’s case was noteworthy in that he was sentenced to five years in prison, a record sentence for a Sherman Act conviction (here). The Peake trial came after subordinates of his and co-conspirators from other companies had pled guilty and cooperated with the government. Peak’s direct subordinate at Sea Star, Peter Baci, was sentenced to 48 months in prison and fined $20,000. Peake’s counterpart at Horizon, Gabriel Serra, was sentenced to 34 months in prison. Other executives at Sea Star and Horizon had pled guilty, and received prison terms ranging from seven months to 29 months. Three companies have paid more than $46 million in fines for their involvement in a conspiracy that included setting rates, bid rigging and other practices.

Farmer faced a maximum sentence of ten years in prison. Farmer was represented by Joseph C. Laws, Melanie Matos Gilroy Cardona and Terrance Reed.  Farmer was facing a maximum of ten years in prison if convicted and his legal team deserves great credit for the best outcome Farmer could have hoped for.  But, there are great difficulties that the Antitrust Division faces in a “last man standing trial.”  I am not familiar with the specifics of the Farmer trial but some of these inherent difficulties are:

  • Staleness:  Farmer was indicted in March 2013.  The indictment charged a conspiracy: “From at least as early as mid-2005, to in or about April 2008.”  So, Farmer was indicted just before the five-year statute of limitations expired.  His trial did not begin until more than two years after indictment.  Farmer was tried in 2015 for conduct that ended in early 2008.  Antitrust violations do not “shock the conscience” the way a crime of violence might, and the long delay between conduct and trial can diminish whatever “jury appeal” a price-fixing case might have had.
  • Witness Fatigue:  When a witness signs a cooperation agreement with the Antitrust Division, he usually doesn’t realize that his cooperation may last longer than many marriages.  It can be difficult to work with a witness who has long since (hoped) he had put this chapter of his life behind him.  Witness prep so many years after the alleged conduct occured can involve an increasing frequency of “I’m not sure.  That was a really long time ago.”  And, in this case it was.
  • Prior Statements:  As I said, I have not read the record in the Farmer case so I do not know who the witnesses were.  But, there is a good chance some of the witnesses previously testified in the Peake trial.  So besides witness fatigue and faded recollections, defense attorneys have prior statements to work with on cross-examination.
  • The Weak Cases Are The Ones That Go To Trial:  It used to be fair to say that the Antitrust Division got plea agreements from those who they had the strongest cases against, but often found itself trying weaker cases, sometimes against senior managers that had insulated themselves from most of the illegal conduct.  But, my opinion is that today cases go to trial because the sentencing guidelines are so severe (based on volume of commerce) that the “last man standing,” who can’t get a 5K cooperation agreement/downward departure, has little to lose by going to trial.  Mr. Farmer went to trial because he declared he was innocent and a jury did in fact acquit him.  But, even a guilty party might go to trial because: (a) he has at least a chance at acquittal; (b) even if convicted at trial, he will likely be sentenced to less time than he could have negotiated with the Antitrust Division pursuant to a recommended guidelines plea agreement; and (c) in any event he can appeal and hope to get a conviction reversed on appeal.  In essence, the trial is an extended sentencing hearing, with a chance of acquittal, and even if convicted, a hope the conviction can be overturned.  I co-authored an article “A Peek Behind the Record Peake Sentence” (here) that explored some of these ideas.

Congratulations to Farmer’s defense team and also to the Antitrust Division for an otherwise very successful investigation.

Thanks for reading.

United Parcel Service Agrees to Settle Alleged Civil False Claims Act Violations

Posted on by
United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS) has agreed to pay $25 million to resolve allegations that it submitted false claims to the federal government in connection with its delivery of Next Day Air overnight packages, the Justice Department announced today.  UPS is a package delivery company based in Atlanta.

“Protecting the federal procurement process from false claims is central to the mission of the Department of Justice,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer of the Justice Department’s Civil Division.  “We will continue to ensure that when federal monies are used to purchase commercial services the government receives the prices and services to which it is entitled.”

“This conduct affected numerous federal agencies,” said U.S. Attorney Dana J. Boente of the Eastern District of Virginia.  “We place high importance on the integrity of companies that provide services to the government.  Combating all manners of fraud on the government is a high priority in the Eastern District of Virginia.”

UPS provides delivery services to hundreds of federal agencies through contracts with the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) and U.S. Transportation Command, which provides support to Department of Defense agencies.  Under these contracts, UPS guaranteed delivery of packages by certain specified times the following day.  The settlement announced today resolves allegations that from 2004 to 2014, UPS engaged in practices that concealed its failure to comply with its delivery guarantees, thereby depriving federal customers of the ability to request refunds for the late delivery of packages.  In particular, the government alleged that UPS knowingly recorded inaccurate delivery times on packages to make it appear that the packages were delivered on time, applied inapplicable “exception codes” to excuse late delivery  (such as “security delay,” “customer not in,” or “business closed”), and provided inaccurate “on-time” performance data under the federal contracts.

“The United States should get what it pays for, nothing less,” said Acting Inspector General Robert C. Erickson of the GSA.

The civil settlement resolves a lawsuit filed under the whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act, which permits private parties to file suit on behalf of the United States for false claims and obtain a portion of the government’s recovery.  The civil lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia by Robert K. Fulk, a former employee of UPS, who will receive $3.75 million.

The resolution in this matter was the result of a coordinated effort between the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Virginia, the GSA Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation OIG, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration and the Department of Treasury OIG, with assistance from the Department of Veterans Affairs OIG.

The lawsuit is captioned United States ex rel. Fulk v. United Parcel Service, Inc., et al., No. 1:11cv890 (E.D. Va.).  The claims resolved by this settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

New Orleans Jury Convicts Two Doctors, a Nurse and an Office Manager for Roles in $50 Million Fraud Scheme

Posted on by

Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Kenneth A. Polite of the Eastern District of Louisiana, Special Agent in Charge Michael J. Anderson of the FBI’s New Orleans Field Office, Special Agent in Charge Mike Fields of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG) Dallas Regional Office and Louisiana Attorney General James D. “Buddy” Caldwell made the announcement.

Barbara Smith, M.D., 66, of Metairie, Louisiana; Roy Berkowitz, M.D., 69, of Slidell, Louisiana; Beverly Breaux, 67, of New Orleans; and Joe Ann Murthil, 57, of New Orleans, were convicted on all counts after a five-day jury trial before Chief U.S. District Court Judge Sarah S. Vance of the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Evidence introduced at trial showed that the defendants and others carried out a home health care fraud scheme in and around New Orleans through multiple companies over the course of more than 10 years.  Smith and Berkowitz falsely claimed that thousands of Medicare recipients were homebound and required nursing or therapy services to be provided in their homes.  Breaux was a registered nurse who falsely certified that these patients were homebound, and falsely claimed to have treated patients that she had not seen.  Murthil was an office manager and biller at one home health company who assisted with the payment of illegal kickbacks to patient recruiters.  Murthil also submitted false claims to Medicare stating that patients were homebound when some of these patients had jobs, had not received services or did not want services.  From 2007 through 2014, the companies in this scheme submitted more than $56 million in claims to Medicare, the vast majority of which were fraudulent.  Medicare paid approximately $50.7 million on these claims.

Sentencing for the defendants is scheduled for Aug. 26, 2015.  In total, 13 defendants have been charged for their roles in this scheme.  Nine other defendants previously pleaded guilty.

This case was investigated by the FBI, HHS-OIG and the Louisiana Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, and was brought as part of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, under the supervision of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Louisiana.  This case was prosecuted by Trial Attorneys William Kanellis and Antonio Pozos and Assistant Chief Ben Curtis of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.

Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, now operating in nine cities across the country, has charged nearly 2,100 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $6.5 billion.  In addition, the HHS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with the HHS-OIG, are taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.

Thomas Farmer Acquitted Puerto Rico Shipping Price Fixing Trial

Posted on by

by Leave a Comment

After a three-week trial, Thomas Farmer, a former Crowley Liner Services Vice-President was acquitted of price-fixing and bid rigging charges by a jury in Puerto Rico. The trial was before Federal District Court Judge Daniel Dominguez. The jury was composed of six men and six women. They deliberated for three hours before returning their verdict. Framer had been indicted on March 21, 2013 on a charge of conspiracy to fix and rig Puerto Rico freight surcharges with counterparts from Horizon Lines and Sea Star Line in the U.S. mainland-Puerto Rico trade.

The acquittal marks the end of the Antitrust Division’s otherwise successful investigation into price-fixing on ocean shipping route between Puerto Rico and the United States. Farmer was the second executive to go to trial. Frank Peake, the former President of Sea Star, was convicted in 2013 on a similar charge (here). Peake’s case was noteworthy in that he was sentenced to five years in prison, a record sentence for a Sherman Act conviction (here). The Peake trial came after subordinates of his and co-conspirators from other companies had pled guilty and cooperated with the government. Peak’s direct subordinate at Sea Star, Peter Baci, was sentenced to 48 months in prison and fined $20,000. Peake’s counterpart at Horizon, Gabriel Serra, was sentenced to 34 months in prison. Other executives at Sea Star and Horizon had pled guilty, and received prison terms ranging from seven months to 29 months. Three companies have paid more than $46 million in fines for their involvement in a conspiracy that included setting rates, bid rigging and other practices.

Farmer faced a maximum sentence of ten years in prison. Farmer was represented by Joseph C. Laws, Melanie Matos Gilroy Cardona and Terrance Reed.  Farmer was facing a maximum of ten years in prison if convicted and his legal team deserves great credit for the best outcome Farmer could have hoped for.  But, there are great difficulties that the Antitrust Division faces in a “last man standing trial.”  I am not familiar with the specifics of the Farmer trial but some of these inherent difficulties are:

  • Staleness:  Farmer was indicted in March 2013.  The indictment charged a conspiracy: “From at least as early as mid-2005, to in or about April 2008.”  So, Farmer was indicted just before the five-year statute of limitations expired.  His trial did not begin until more than two years after indictment.  Farmer was tried in 2015 for conduct that ended in early 2008.  Antitrust violations do not “shock the conscience” the way a crime of violence might, and the long delay between conduct and trial can diminish whatever “jury appeal” a price-fixing case might have had.
  • Witness Fatigue:  When a witness signs a cooperation agreement with the Antitrust Division, he usually doesn’t realize that his cooperation may last longer than many marriages.  It can be difficult to work with a witness who has long since (hoped) he had put this chapter of his life behind him.  Witness prep so many years after the alleged conduct occured can involve an increasing frequency of “I’m not sure.  That was a really long time ago.”  And, in this case it was.
  • Prior Statements:  As I said, I have not read the record in the Farmer case so I do not know who the witnesses were.  But, there is a good chance some of the witnesses previously testified in the Peake trial.  So besides witness fatigue and faded recollections, defense attorneys have prior statements to work with on cross-examination.
  • The Weak Cases Are The Ones That Go To Trial:  It used to be fair to say that the Antitrust Division got plea agreements from those who they had the strongest cases against, but often found itself trying weaker cases, sometimes against senior managers that had insulated themselves from most of the illegal conduct.  But, my opinion is that today cases go to trial because the sentencing guidelines are so severe (based on volume of commerce) that the “last man standing,” who can’t get a 5K cooperation agreement/downward departure, has little to lose by going to trial.  Mr. Farmer went to trial because he declared he was innocent and a jury did in fact acquit him.  But, even a guilty party might go to trial because: (a) he has at least a chance at acquittal; (b) even if convicted at trial, he will likely be sentenced to less time than he could have negotiated with the Antitrust Division pursuant to a recommended guidelines plea agreement; and (c) in any event he can appeal and hope to get a conviction reversed on appeal.  In essence, the trial is an extended sentencing hearing, with a chance of acquittal, and even if convicted, a hope the conviction can be overturned.  I co-authored an article “A Peek Behind the Record Peake Sentence” (here) that explored some of these ideas.

Congratulations to Farmer’s defense team and also to the Antitrust Division for an otherwise very successful investigation.

Thanks for reading.

ANTITRUST GUIDANCE IN BRAZIL

Posted on by

ANTITRUST GUIDANCE IN BRAZIL

by Leave a Comment

Today we have an update from Brazil by Mauro Grinberg, a former Commissioner of CADE, a former Attorney of the National Treasury and senior partner of Grinberg Cordovil.

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

A Resolution issued by Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE), dated March 11, 2015, made a comeback of the procedure for antitrust guidance to be requested to CADE. This request for guidance can be used in all competition cases, including cartels.

The first article of such Resolution says that any interested party can forward a request for guidance to CADE, related to specific situations, which may be real or potential. Interested parties can also be trade associations which have, as their goals, representation of the involved sector and can demonstrate that at least one of the represented companies is legitimately interested in such guidance.

There are some requirements for such request for guidance and, although it is pointless, for the purpose of this note, to go through all of them, it is interesting to mention that the party must declare all CADE´s precedents related to the object. So, no request for guidance can be asked before a thorough research through CADE´s jurisprudence. However, any research may have its problems and it is not clear what will happen if a certain research does not present a decision that CADE may understand as fundamental.

Another point that must be reported says that the request for guidance cannot refer to a purely hypothetical issue. This may be a somewhat tricky question because CADE may understand that a question that is not under practice is hypothetical (which, in a way, it may be). It is not clear what can happen if, e.g., a party asks whether it is legitimate to have certain contacts with competitors and, if the conduct is approved by CADE and the party does not perform it due to a further strategic and/or commercial decision, could the party can be punished for having submitted a request for guidance that CADE may consider hypothetical?.

The answer to the request for guidance is binding for CADE and the parties for five years, although the Resolution states that CADE can reconsider its decision, if based on new facts. So, in practice, the Resolution is really binding only for the parties submitting the request for guidance.

A last problematic article states that, if CADE understands that an already existing conduct, which is the object of the request for guidance, has the possibility of being illegal, an administrative file will be opened in order to prosecute the interested party. If the conduct is a possible cartel, a criminal file may also be opened. So, it is fundamental that, in case a party wants to make such request related to a conduct that is under way, it is advisable to stop such conduct before requesting the guidance.

Consequently, a request for guidance, in order to be in the safe side, must be related to conducts that are not being performed but are to be performed and depend on the guidance, with the additional task of demonstrating to the authorities that the request for guidance is not hypothetical.

Mauro Grinberg is a former Commissioner of CADE, a former Attorney of the National Treasury and senior partner of Grinberg Cordovil.