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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Upstart Start-Up” GeyerGorey LLP Opens Dallas Office

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

For more, click the link below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For entire article, click below:

For Merging Airlines, Concessions May Not Be Enough

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law360: GeyerGorey Opens In Dallas With Former DOJ Antitrust Ace

Law360: GeyerGorey Opens In Dallas With Former DOJ Antitrust Ace

By Alex Lawson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–Editing by Katherine Rautenberg.

MainJustice.Com “Former Prosecutor from Shuttered Antitrust Division Office Joins White Collar Firm”

Click Link Below:

Former Prosecutor from Shuttered Antitrust Division Office Joins White Collar Firm

Noted Antitrust and Disaster Fraud Prosecutor Joan E. Marshall Joins GeyerGorey LLP

Joan Marshall who prosecuted the worldwide vitamins cartel and brought a series of fraud cases in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, has joined the firm as a partner. Previously, Ms. Marshall was with the US DOJ Antitrust Division in the Dallas Field Office. She is the tenth former DOJ prosecutor to join the new boutique law firm in less than a year.Joan Marshall_4small

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

PRLog (Press Release) – Aug. 6, 2013 – WASHINGTON, D.C. — GeyerGorey LLP is pleased to announce that Joan E. Marshall, a former Department of Justice prosecutor, has joined the firm as partner. Ms. Marshall will open a new office for the firm, in Dallas, where she will be resident.

Ms. Marshall comes to GeyerGorey from the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, where she also served as a prosecutor on the Department’s Disaster Fraud Task Force and its predecessor, the Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force. While with the Department of Justice, Ms. Marshall supervised numerous multi-agency investigations of bid rigging, price fixing, mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, bribery, perjury and obstruction of justice.

Ms. Marshall had the distinction of breaking the Dallas Field Office’s acclaimed vitamins cartel case and helped to devise, structure and carry out what became one of the most comprehensive international investigations and prosecutions of all time, resulting in more than $1 billion in collected criminal fines. She led the Antitrust Division’s bribery prosecutions involving construction of the levees surrounding New Orleans after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. Her experience spans investigations and prosecutions involving numerous industries including wholesale groceries, milk, seafood, medical equipment, oilfield supplies, military moving and storage, road and building construction, and municipal finance.

“We are thrilled that Joan has decided to join us,” said Hays Gorey. “She adds deep experience with numerous enforcement agencies and compliments our experience in key industries like oil and gas exploration, not to mention the fraud piece. Our corporate compliance and competition expertise is a perfect fit in the Dallas-Ft. Worth market, which has the largest concentration of corporate headquarters in the United States.”

Ms. Marshall is a frequent speaker on antitrust enforcement and fraud prevention and detection and has developed numerous training programs. She is a recipient of the United States Department of Justice, Assistant Attorney General’s Award and certificates of appreciation from the United States Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, and the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command, Major Procurement Fraud Unit.

Robert Zastrow, who was Verizon’s Assistant General Counsel for 15 years before co-founding the firm in October 2012, added, “Joan’s extensive background and expertise nicely complements our firm’s unique philosophy and enriches our solid bench in the White Collar world.” Co-founder, Brad Geyer added: “We are very involved in servicing the government contractor and the non-profit and non-governmental organization community and we are excited to roll in Joan’s disaster fraud experience into our overall product offerings. It is also unusual to have career prosecutors in one firm that worked on the highest profile matters on both the criminal and civil worlds. Joan will give us a strategic presence in the Dallas market, which is home to companies in the airline, technology, energy, banking, medical and defense contracting sectors.”

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., GeyerGorey LLP specializes in white collar criminal defense, particularly investigations and cases involving allegations of economic crimes, such as violations of the federal antitrust laws (price fixing, bid rigging, territorial and customer allocation agreements), procurement fraud, securities fraud, foreign bribery (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) and qui tam (False Claims Act) and other whistleblower actions. The firm also conducts internal investigations of possible criminal conduct and provides advice regarding compliance with U.S. antitrust, anti-bribery and other laws.

 

 

 

 

 

   

Phillip Zane’s Game Theory: Ten Years On

Ten years ago this spring, Zane published his definitive work on game theory which changed the way law-and-economics scholars and sophisticated prosecutors and defense counsel analyze whether, when, and how corporations and executive management teams should disclose white collar criminal conduct.

Phillip Zane be the only attorney whose colleagues and clients might expect to see an open book on games and strategy on his desk.

Ten years ago this spring, Zane published The Price Fixer’s Dilemma:  Applying Game Theory to the Decision of Whether to Plead Guilty to Antitrust Crimes, 48 Antitrust Bull. 1 (2003), which changed the way law-and-economics scholars and sophisticated prosecutors and defense counsel analyze whether, and when, to settle high-stakes antitrust cases.

Zane’s article strongly suggested that in a number of common situations, pleading guilty (or even seeking the protections of the corporate leniency program) is not always justified.  Zane’s article used a repeated, or iterative, version of the prisoner’s dilemma to demonstrate that pleading guilty was not always the best strategy for antitrust defendants facing criminal prosecution and civil liability in multiple proceedings or jurisdictions.

At the time, a few of the brainier Antitrust Division prosecutors breathed a sigh of relief when the defense bar did not seem to notice and they failed to incorporate Zane’s research into their negotiating strategies.

In 2007, Zane published “An Introduction to Game Theory for Antitrust Lawyers,” which he used in a unit of an antitrust class he taught at George Mason University School of Law. That paper was another milestone on the way to making game theory concepts accessible and useful to the antitrust defense bar.

Zane’s work, which now used game theory to criticize the settlement of the second Microsoft case and the Government’s approach to conscious parallelism, as well as the leniency program, was met with official grumblings within the Antitrust Division.

GeyerGorey LLP was founded on the principle that the chances for achieving the best possible outcome are maximized by having access to multiple, top-notch, cross-disciplinary legal minds that are synced together by an organizational and compensation structure that encourages sharing of ideas and information in client relationships.

As international enforcement agencies sprouted and developed criminal capabilities and as more hybrid matters included prosecutors from US enforcement agency components with sometimes overlapping jurisdictions, such as the Antitrust, Criminal, Civil and Tax Divisions of the Department of Justice, and the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies, particularly the Securities and Exchange Commission, it became apparent that Zane’s game-theoretic approach has application in almost every significant decision we could be called upon to make.  Since Zane has joined us we have been working to factor in the increased risks associated with what we call hybrid conduct (conduct that violates more than a single statute).  Our tools of analysis for identifying risks for violations of competition laws, anti-corruption laws, anti-money-laundering laws, and other prohibitions, include sophisticated game-theoretic techniques, as well as, of course, the noses of former seasoned prosecutors, taking into account, each particular client’s tolerance for risk.

To take one example, an internal investigation might show both possible price fixing and bribery of foreign government officials.  How, given the potential for multiple prosecutions, should decisions to defend or cooperate be assessed?  And how might such decisions trigger interest by the Tax Division, the SEC, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or other regulators.  When should a corporation launch an internal investigation?  When should it make a mandatory disclosure?  What should it disclose and to which agency, in what order?  When should it seek leniency and when should it instead stand silent?  These tools are valuable in the civil context as well:  When should it abandon a proposed merger or instead oppose an enforcement agency’s challenge to a proposed deal?

These are truly the most difficult questions a lawyer advising large corporations is required to address.  We are well positioned to help answer these questions.

DLA Piper’s Robert Connolly pens MLEX article regarding “The DOJ Antitrust Division’s policy on independent compliance monitors: is it misguided?”

Friend of the Firm, Robert Connolly, former Chief of the Philadelphia Field Office of the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice, now resident in DLA Piper’s Philadelphia Office last week penned an important contribution for MLEX regarding DOJ’s evolving policy regarding compliance monitors:  “The DOJ Antitrust Divsion’s policy on independent compliance monitors: is it misguided?”