Category Archives: Important Legal Filings

Four Northern California Real Estate Investors Agree to Plead Guilty to Bid Rigging at Public Foreclosure Auctions

Posted on by
Four Northern California real estate investors have agreed to plead guilty for their role in conspiracies to rig bids and commit mail fraud at public real estate foreclosure auctions in Northern California, the Department of Justice announced.

Felony charges were filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland against Wesley Barta of Oakland, Irma Galvez of Pacheco, Calif., Stan Kahan of Berkeley, Calif., and Joseph Vesce of San Francisco.

To date, as a result of the department’s ongoing antitrust investigations into bid rigging and fraud at public real estate foreclosure auctions in Northern California, 35 individuals, including Barta, Galvez, Kahan and Vesce, have agreed to plead or have pleaded guilty.

“These conspirators manipulated and suppressed the competitive process through their fraudulent and collusive conduct to the detriment of lenders and distressed homeowners,” said Bill Baer, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “The Antitrust Division will continue to pursue those responsible for these illegal activities.”

According to court documents, for various lengths of time between June 2008 and January 2011, Barta and Vesce 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 in Contra Costa County, Calif.   Barta and Vesce were also charged with a conspiracy to use the mail to carry out a scheme to fraudulently acquire title to selected Contra Costa County 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 department said that the selected properties were then awarded to the conspirators who submitted the highest bids in the second, private auctions. The private auctions often took place at or near the courthouse steps where the public auctions were held.

The same charges were brought against Galvez and Kahan for their involvement in similar conduct in Alameda County, Calif., from November 2008 through May 2010.

The department said that 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 Alameda and Contra Costa 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.

“The continued success of our investigation into the bid rigging conspiracies at Northern California public foreclosure auctions is evident in today’s four guilty pleas,” said David J. Johnson, FBI Special Agent in Charge of the San Francisco Field Office. “The FBI will remain focused with the Antitrust Division in holding those accountable for such illegal acts.”

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 victim if either amount is greater than $1 million. A count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine. The government can also seek to forfeit the proceeds earned from participating in the conspiracy to commit mail fraud.

Today’s charges are the latest filed by the department in its ongoing investigation into bid rigging and fraud at public real estate foreclosure auctions in San Francisco, San Mateo, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties, Calif. These investigations are being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office and the FBI’s San Francisco Office. Anyone with information concerning bid rigging or fraud related to public real estate foreclosure auctions should contact the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Office at 415-436-6660, visit www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm or call the FBI tip line at 415-553-7400.

Today’s 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. 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.

General Electric Aviation Systems to Pay U.S. $6.58 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations

Posted on by
General Electric Aviation Systems (GEAS) has agreed to pay $6.58 million to settle allegations that it submitted false claims in connection with multiple Department of Defense contracts, the Justice Department announced today.  GEAS, headquartered in Ohio, manufactures and sells integrated systems and components for commercial, corporate, military and marine aircraft.

“This case demonstrates the Department of Justice’s commitment to ensure that our military receives quality products to perform the important mission of protecting and defending our country,” said Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. “The department will aggressively pursue those who put that mission at risk.”

GEAS contracted to manufacture and deliver to the Navy external fuel tanks (EFTs) for use on the F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter jet.  GEAS manufactured the EFTs at its plant in Santa Ana, California.  In March 2008, a GEAS-manufactured EFT failed government testing, which led to a multi-year investigation by the local California offices of the Defense Contract Management Agency, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and the Navy Criminal Investigative Service.  As a result of that investigation, the United States alleged that GEAS knowingly failed to comply with contract specifications and failed to undertake proper quality control procedures in connection with 641 EFTs it delivered to the Navy between June 2005 and February 2008.

In addition, the settlement resolves allegations that, between June 2010 and June 2011, GEAS knew that it falsely represented to another government contractor that GEAS had performed a complete inspection of 228 drag beams to be used on Army UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters, and that those 228 drag beams conformed to all contract specifications.

“Defense contractors agree to provide the government with a quality product, and in doing so, they promise to follow strict manufacturing and testing protocols to ensure that our military receives only the best equipment,” said André Birotte Jr., U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California.  “In this case, some of the hardware sold to the government did not meet quality-control standards, and that failure could have put our service members at risk.  This multimillion dollar settlement is designed to ensure that General Electric Aviation Systems does not engage in this type of misconduct in the future, and this case should serve as a warning to any government contractor who thinks it can cut corners.”

Carter Stewart, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, added, “We are determined to protect the integrity of the system that provides goods and services to the men and women who serve in the armed forces.  The False Claims Act is an effective and powerful tool to help us carry out our mission.”

Allegations about GEAS’s misconduct at the Santa Ana facility were included in a lawsuit filed by former GEAS Santa Ana employee Jeffrey Adler under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private individuals called “relators” to bring lawsuits for false claims on behalf of the United States, and to receive a portion of the proceeds of any settlement or judgment.  Mr. Adler’s share of the settlement has not yet been determined.

This settlement was the result of a coordinated effort by the Department of Justice, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch; the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California; the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Ohio; the Defense Contract Management Agency; the Defense Contract Audit Agency; the Defense Criminal Investigative Service; and the Navy Criminal Investigative Service in investigating and resolving the allegations.

The qui tam lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, is captioned United States ex rel. Adler v. General Electric Aviation Services (1-CV-00313).  The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only and do not constitute a determination of liability.

Former Executive at Florida-Based Lender Processing Services Inc. Sentenced to Five Years in Prison for Role in Mortgage-Related Document Fraud Scheme

Posted on by
A former executive of Lender Processing Services Inc. (LPS) – a publicly traded company based in Jacksonville, Fla. – was sentenced today to serve five years in prison for her participation in a six-year scheme to prepare and file more than 1 million fraudulently signed and notarized mortgage-related documents with property recorders’ offices throughout the United States, announced Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida Robert E. O’Neill, and Special Agent in Charge Michelle S. Klimt of the FBI Jacksonville Division.

Lorraine Brown, 56, of Alpharetta, Ga., was sentenced by Senior U.S. District Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr. in the Middle District of Florida. In addition to her prison term, Brown was sentenced to serve two years of supervised release and ordered to pay a fine of $15,000.   On Nov. 20, 2012, Brown pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud.   

“Lorraine Brown will spend five years in prison for her central role in a scheme to fraudulently execute thousands of mortgage-related documents while our nation’s housing market was at its most vulnerable point in generations,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Raman.  “The documents that were fraudulently produced under Brown’s direction were relied upon in court proceedings, including a significant number of foreclosure and bankruptcy matters. Today’s sentencing represents appropriate punishment for someone who sought to capitalize on the nation’s housing crisis.”

“Floridians were hard hit by the downturn in the real estate market,” said U.S. Attorney O’Neill.  “We will continue to pursue individuals like Brown who took advantage of consumers for personal gain and contributed to the financial crisis.  Prosecuting financial crimes remains a priority for our office.”

“The investigation of sophisticated mortgage and corporate fraud schemes continues to be a priority for the Federal Bureau of Investigation as such criminal activities have a significant economic impact on our community,” said Special Agent in Charge Klimt.

Brown was an executive at LPS and the chief executive of DocX LLC, which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of LPS, until it was closed down in early 2010.    DocX’s main clients were residential mortgage servicers, which typically undertake certain actions for the owners of mortgage-backed promissory notes.    Servicers hired DocX to, among other things, assist in creating and executing mortgage-related documents filed with recorders’ offices.

According to Brown’s plea agreement, employees of DocX, at the direction of Brown and others, began forging and falsifying signatures of authorized personnel on the mortgage-related documents that they had been hired to prepare and file with property recorders’ offices.    Only specific personnel at DocX were authorized by clients to sign the documents, but the documents were fraudulently notarized as if actually executed by authorized DocX employees.

According to plea documents, Brown implemented these signing practices at DocX to enable DocX and Brown to generate greater profit.   Specifically, DocX was able to create, execute and file larger volumes of documents using these signing and notarization practices.    To further increase profits, DocX also hired temporary workers to act as authorized signers.    These temporary employees worked for much lower costs and without the quality control represented by Brown to DocX’s clients.   Some of these temporary workers were able to sign thousands of mortgage-related instruments a day.   Between 2003 and 2009, DocX generated approximately $60 million in gross revenue.

After these documents were falsely signed and fraudulently notarized, Brown authorized DocX employees to file and record them with local county property records offices across the country.   Many of these documents were later relied upon in court proceedings, including property foreclosures and federal bankruptcy actions.   Brown admitted she understood that property recorders, courts, title insurers and homeowners relied upon the documents as genuine.

This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Ryan Rohlfsen and Assistant Chief Glenn S. Leon of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark B. Devereaux of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida.    This case was investigated by the FBI, with assistance from the state of Florida’s Department of Financial Services.

This case is part of efforts underway by President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF), which was created in November 2009 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 more than 10,000 financial fraud cases against nearly 15,000 defendants including more than 2,900 mortgage fraud defendants.

Leading Antitrust Lawyers and DOJ Alumni Allen P. Grunes and Maurice E. Stucke Join GeyerGorey LLP

Posted on by

GeyerGorey LLP is pleased to announce that two veteran Department of Justice prosecutors, Allen P. Grunes and Maurice E. Stucke, have joined the firm.  Grunes, recently named as a “Washington D.C. Super Lawyer for 2013” in antitrust litigation, government relations, and mergers & acquisitions, joins as a partner.  Stucke, a widely-published professor with numerous honors including a Fulbright fellowship, joins as of counsel.  Stucke will continue to teach at the University of Tennessee College of Law.

“We are delighted that Allen and Maurice have decided to join us,” said Brad Geyer.  “They add considerable fire power to our already impressive antitrust, compliance and white collar roster and give us more capabilities and capacity, particularly on the civil side.”

Robert Zastrow, who was Verizon’s Assistant General Counsel for 15 years before co-founding the firm in October 2012, added, “Allen’s and Maurice’s extensive background and expertise nicely complement our firm’s unique philosophy and enrich our competition and merger practices.  We are thrilled they are joining our innovative effort in delivering legal services.”

GeyerGorey LLP presents a new way to practice law.  It may be the only law firm in the country where prior federal prosecutorial experience is a prerequisite for partnership.  Given its lawyers’ extensive legal expertise, GeyerGorey can handle trials involving the most complex legal and factual issues, and, when advantageous, work with other law firms, economists and specialists, particularly former federal prosecutors and agents, who bolster existing resources, expertise and constantly freshen perspective.  As founding partner Hays Gorey added, “We seek to avoid the traditional hierarchal partner-associate pyramid, hourly billing fee structure, and practice fiefdoms.  We want to attract entrepreneurial lawyers, like Allen and Maurice, who love competition policy and practicing law.  Having worked with them at DOJ, I am excited about the expertise and enthusiasm they bring to our clients.”

Consistent with GeyerGorey’s philosophy, both Grunes and Stucke are alumni of the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, in Washington, D.C.  At DOJ, they led numerous civil investigations, worked on high-profile trials, and negotiated consent decrees involving significant divestitures across many different industries.  In their last case together at the Division, In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation, they successfully sought, as a matter of equity and the first time in the Division’s history, for the government’s share of damages in a private class action settlement.

Grunes and Stucke are regarded as leading authorities on competition policy in the media.  Their scholarship on media and telecommunications policy has been published in the Antitrust Law Journal, the Northwestern University Law Review, the Connecticut Law Review, the Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, and the Federal Communications Law Journal.  They have spoken at numerous conferences on competition policy and the media, including the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s workshop, How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?  Both are frequently quoted in the press on mergers and anticompetitive conduct.  In addition, both serve on the advisory boards of the American Antitrust Institute and the Loyola Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies in Chicago.

Allen Grunes joins GeyerGorey from another Washington, D.C. firm, where he was a shareholder.  His recent matters include acting as class counsel in litigation against several hospitals and an association in Arizona that allegedly artificially depressed the rates paid to temporary nurses, opposing the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile for a coalition of companies including DISH Network, and representing Warner Music Group in connection with the merger of Universal and EMI.  He has counseled dozens of companies and associations on antitrust issues and corporate mergers.  He also serves as chair of the antitrust committee of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia.

Maurice Stucke is a tenured professor at the University of Tennessee and a leading competition law scholar.  With over 30 articles and book chapters, Stucke has been invited by competition authorities from around the world and the OECD to speak about behavioral economics and competition policy.  He currently is one of the United States’ non-governmental advisors to the International Competition Network, the only international body devoted exclusively to competition law enforcement.  His scholarship has been cited by the U.S. federal courts, the OECD, competition agencies and policymakers.

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., GeyerGorey 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 whistleblower actions.  The firm also conducts internal investigations of possible criminal conduct and provides advice regarding compliance with U.S. antitrust and other laws.

Former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling Resentenced to 168 Months for Fraud, Conspiracy Charges

Posted on by
Former Enron Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey K. Skilling has been resentenced to 168 months in prison on conspiracy, securities fraud, and other charges related to the collapse of Enron Corporation. In addition to the prison sentence, Skilling, 59, was ordered to forfeit approximately $42 million to be applied toward restitution for the victims of the fraud at Enron.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Criminal Division made the announcement after Skilling was resentenced before U.S. District Judge Sim Lake at the U.S. District Court in Houston.

“The sentence handed down today ends years of litigation, imposes significant punishment upon the defendant and precludes him from ever challenging his conviction or sentence,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Raman. “With today’s court action, victims of Skilling’s crimes will finally receive more than $40 million that he owes them.  We appreciate the hard work and dedication of all the prosecutors and agents who have handled this important case from the initial investigation to today’s successful conclusion.”

A federal jury found Skilling guilty in Houston on May 25, 2006, of one count of conspiracy, 12 counts of securities fraud, one count of insider trading, and five counts of making false statements to auditors.  Judge Lake initially sentenced Skilling to serve 292 months of imprisonment on Oct. 23, 2006.  On Jan. 6, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed Skilling’s convictions but vacated his sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing.  The court of appeals concluded that the district court erred by increasing Skilling’s sentence for having substantially jeopardized the safety and soundness of a financial institution – that is, Enron’s pension plan.  As a result, the court of appeals effectively reduced Skilling’s guidelines range of imprisonment by approximately nine years.

In May 2013, the government and Skilling entered into an agreement to recommend jointly to the district court a sentence between 168 months and 210 months of imprisonment, a limited reduction in Skilling’s guidelines range of imprisonment in exchange for Skilling agreeing, among other things, not to contest the original forfeiture and restitution order and to waive all appeals and other litigation.  As court documents make clear, the government entered into this agreement, in part, to bring finality to Skilling’s convictions and thereby allow the government to promptly seek the distribution of approximately $42 million to victims of Skilling’s crimes.

Skilling’s convictions stemmed from a scheme to deceive the investing public, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and others about the true performance of Enron’s businesses. The scheme was designed to make it appear that Enron was growing at a healthy and predictable rate, consistent with analysts’ published expectations, that Enron did not have significant write-offs or debt and was worthy of an investment-grade credit rating, that Enron was comprised of a number of successful business units, and that the company had an appropriate cash flow. This scheme had the effect of artificially inflating Enron’s stock price, which increased from approximately $30 per share in early 1998 to over $80 per share in January 2001, and artificially stemming the decline of the stock during the first three quarters of 2001.

The fraud scheme eventually unraveled and Enron filed for bankruptcy in December 2001, making its stock virtually worthless.

The investigation into Enron’s collapse was conducted by the Enron Task Force, a team of federal prosecutors supervised by the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, and Special Agents from the FBI and IRS Criminal Investigation. The Task Force received considerable assistance from the Securities and Exchange Commission. The resentencing hearing was handled by Patrick Stokes, Albert Stieglitz and Robert Heberle of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.

Former Security Contractor CEO Sentenced for Masterminding $31 Million Disadvantaged Small Business Fraud Scheme

Posted on by
The former chief executive officer of a Virginia-based security contracting firm was sentenced in the Eastern District of Virginia to 72 months in prison for creating a front company to obtain more than $31 million intended for disadvantaged small businesses and for bribing the former regional director for the National Capital Region of the Federal Protective Service (FPS) as part of the scheme. The front company obtained the contracts through the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Section 8(a) program, which allows qualified small businesses to receive sole-source and competitive-bid contracts set aside for minority-owned and disadvantaged small businesses.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride of the Eastern District of Virginia; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Inspector General Paul K. Martin; SBA Inspector General Peggy E. Gustafson; Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) Special Agent in Charge of Mid-Atlantic Field Office Robert E. Craig; General Services Administration (GSA) Inspector General Brian D. Miller; and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Deputy Inspector General Charles K. Edwards made the announcement after sentencing by United States District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee.

“Keith Hedman used his expertise gleaned from decades as a government contractor to cheat the system and steal tens of millions from minority-owned small business owners,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Raman. “Today’s sentence shows that those who resort to deceit and bribery to secure federal contracts will be caught and held accountable.”

“Keith Hedman tried to game the system and take advantage of a government program designed to help minority-owned small businesses,” said U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride.  “He committed fraud, he undermined the trust of the U.S. government and this type of conduct will not be tolerated.  My office is committed to prosecuting those who cheat the government to the fullest extent of the law.”    “I commend the outstanding efforts of our agents and the other law enforcement agencies involved in this case in protecting the integrity of the Federal Government’s procurement program and taxpayer dollars” said NASA Inspector General Paul K. Martin.

Keith Hedman, 53, of Arlington, Va., was sentenced today after pleading guilty to major government fraud and conspiracy to commit bribery on March 13, 2013. Hedman was also ordered to forfeit approximately $6.1 million.

According to court documents, in or about 2011 Hedman formed Company A, which was approved to participate in the 8(a) program based on the 8(a) eligibility of its listed president and CEO, an African-American female. When the listed president and CEO left Company A in 2003, Hedman became its sole owner, and the company was no longer 8(a)-eligible.

In 2003, Hedman created Company B, another Arlington-based security contractor, to ensure that he could continue to gain access to 8(a) contracting preferences for which Company A was no longer qualified. Prior to applying for Company B’s 8(a) status, Hedman selected an employee, Dawn Hamilton, 48, of Brownsville, Md., to serve as a figurehead owner based on her Portuguese heritage and history of social disadvantage. In reality, the new company was managed by Hedman and Company A senior leadership in violation of 8(a) rules and regulations. To deceive the SBA, the co-conspirators falsely claimed that Hamilton formed and founded the company and that she was the only member of the company’s management. Based on those misrepresentations, Company B obtained 8(a) status in 2004.

From 2004 through February 2012, Hedman – not Hamilton – impermissibly exercised ultimate decision-making authority and control over Company B by directing its finances, allocation of personnel, and government contracting activities.  Hedman nonetheless maintained the impression that Hamilton was leading the company, including through forgeries of signatures of Hamilton to documents she had not seen or drafted. Hedman also retained ultimate control over the shell business’s bank accounts throughout its existence.  In 2010, Hedman withdrew $1 million in cash from Company B’s accounts and gave the funds in cash to Hamilton and three other conspirators. In 2011, Hedman approached Hamilton’s brother about starting another shell company to continue the scheme.  The trio submitted another fraudulent application to the SBA, but it was rejected.

Later in 2011, Hedman agreed to pay Derek Matthews, 47, of Harwood, Md., the former FPS Regional Director for the National Capital Region, $50,000 and a percentage of new business in exchange for Matthews helping Company B obtain contracts.  During the bribery scheme, Matthews served as FPS Deputy Assistant Director for Operations, a law enforcement position in which he had daily oversight of physical security programs and oversight of approximately 13,000 FPS officers at approximately 9,000 federal buildings.

In total, the scheme netted government contracts valued at more than $153 million, from which Company B obtained more than $31 million in contract payments. The various conspirators netted more than $6.1 million that they were not entitled to receive from those payments. Seven other defendants have pleaded guilty in the scheme.

This case is being investigated by NASA Office of the Inspector General (OIG), the SBA -OIG, DCIS-OIG, GSA-OIG, and DHS-OIG, with assistance from the Defense Contract Audit Agency. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Chad Golder and Ryan Faulconer, a former Trial Attorney for the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, are prosecuting the case on behalf of the United States.

The Department of Justice Files Suit Against Louisiana Pharmaceutical Company for Distributing Unapproved and Misbranded Prescription and Over-the-counter Drugs

Posted on by
Acting Assistant Attorney General Stuart F. Delery announced today that the Department of Justice, on behalf of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against Sage Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Sage), its president Dr. Jivn-Ren Chen, and its Director of Corporate Quality, Charles L. Thomas, all of Shreveport, Louisiana.  According to the Complaint, the defendants violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) by manufacturing and distributing unapproved and misbranded drug products.  Under the FDCA, before a company can sell a new drug product to consumers, it must submit and receive approval of a new drug application from the FDA.  The purpose of this approval process is to ensure that drugs manufactured and distributed to consumers are safe and effective for their intended uses.  Furthermore, the FDA requires all drug labeling to have adequate directions for use.

“Today’s action furthers the FDA’s mission of ensuring that all drugs sold to the public are safe and effective, and those companies that undermine this mission will be held accountable,” said Stuart Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division.

U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana Stephanie A. Finley said, “This lawsuit demonstrates that this office will make every effort to protect public health by filing enforcement actions against companies that are identified as violating federal law.”

This is the second injunctive case that the government has brought against Sage alleging the distribution of unapproved new drugs.  In 2000, the government obtained an injunction against the company banning the manufacture and distribution of two unapproved new drugs.  Since that time, FDA inspections revealed that defendants continue to manufacture and distribute other drug products—including prescription pain relievers, over-the-counter (OTC) cough and cold remedies, and OTC wound cleansers—without first obtaining the requisite FDA approvals.  As a result, the defendants’ products are unapproved new drugs and misbranded drugs under the FDCA, and potentially unsafe and ineffective.

Despite numerous warnings from FDA, the defendants have failed to bring their operations into compliance with the law. The Justice Department will seek a permanent injunction requiring the defendants to cease all receiving, processing, manufacturing, preparing, packaging, labeling, holding, and distributing activities until they comply with applicable FDA regulations.

The FDA referred this matter to the Department of Justice.  The Consumer Protection Branch of the Justice Department’s Civil Division together with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Louisiana brought this case on behalf of the United States.

Statement of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division on Its Decision to Close Its Investigation of Delta Air Lines’ Acquisition of an Equity Interest in Virgin Atlantic Airways

Posted on by
The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division issued the following statement today after announcing the closing of its investigation into Delta Air Lines’ proposed equity investment in Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. and their related trans-Atlantic joint venture:

“After a thorough investigation of the competitive effects of the proposed equity investment and joint venture, the Antitrust Division concluded that the facts and circumstances did not warrant further investigation or action.

“In December 2012, Delta Air Lines and Virgin Atlantic reached an agreement to establish a joint venture on flights between North America and the United Kingdom.  At the same time, Delta entered an agreement to acquire the 49 percent stake in Virgin Atlantic currently held by Singapore Airlines for $360 million.  Virgin Group will retain the majority 51 percent stake.

“The proposed equity investment and joint venture also were subject to review by the European Commission.  The division and the European Commission cooperated closely throughout the course of their respective investigations, with frequent contact between the agencies.  This cooperation, facilitated by the parties, made for a more efficient review process.

“Delta and Virgin Atlantic also have filed an application with the U.S. Department of Transportation seeking antitrust immunity for their joint venture.  The division will continue to consult, as appropriate, with the Department of Transportation as it reviews the request for immunity.”

United Technologies Corporation Liable for Over $473 Million for Inflating Prices on Aircraft Engines Sold to Air Force

Posted on by
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio found United Technologies Corporation liable for over $473 million in damages and penalties arising out of a contract to provide the Air Force with fighter aircraft engines for F-15 and F-16 aircraft between 1985 and 1990, the Justice Department announced today.  United Technologies, which is based in Connecticut, provides a broad range of high-technology products and services to the global aerospace and building systems industries.

“The department will relentlessly pursue justice against those who knowingly submit false claims to the government and abuse the public contracting process,” said Stuart Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division.  “It is vital that companies who do business with the government provide full and accurate information, and if they do not, they will pay the consequences.”

The government alleged that UTC’s proposed prices for the engine contract misrepresented how UTC calculated those prices, resulting in the government paying hundreds of millions more than it otherwise would have paid for the engines.  Specifically, the government alleged that UTC failed to include in its price proposal historical discounts that it received from suppliers, and instead knowingly used outdated information that excluded such discounts.

The government filed suit against UTC in 1999 under the False Claims Act and the common law, and those claims were tried, without a jury, in 2004.  An initial decision by the district court in 2008 found UTC liable under the False Claims Act, but did not award any damages.  The district court also dismissed the government’s common law claims.  That decision was appealed by both the government and UTC.  In 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that UTC was liable under the False Claims Act, but reversed and remanded the case to the district court to recalculate the government’s damages and to reconsider the government’s common law claims.

In yesterday’s ruling, the district court awarded the government False Claims Act damages and penalties of $364 million, which is the highest recovery obtained by the government in a case tried under the Act.  The court also awarded an additional $109 million in damages on the government’s common law claims.  With the addition of prejudgment interest on the latter claims, which the court has yet to calculate, the government anticipates that the total judgment against United Technologies could be well in excess of half a billion dollars.    This case is being handled by the Civil Division of the Department of Justice.  The lawsuit is captioned United States of America v. United Technologies Corp., No. 3:99-cv-093 (S.D. Ohio).

Macandrews & Forbes Holdings Inc. to Pay $720,000 Civil Penalty for Violating Antitrust Premerger Notification Requirements

Posted on by
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc. will pay a $720,000 civil penalty to settle charges that the company violated premerger reporting and waiting requirements when it acquired voting securities of Scientific Games Corporation, the Department of Justice announced today.

The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, at the request of the Federal Trade Commission, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit today in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., against MacAndrews & Forbes for violating the notification requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act of 1976.  At the same time, the department filed a proposed settlement that, if approved by the court, will settle the charges.

MacAndrews & Forbes is a holding company based in New York and is wholly-owned by Ronald O. Perelman.  Scientific Games is a New York-based provider of lottery and gaming services.

According to the complaint, MacAndrews & Forbes failed to comply with the antitrust premerger notification requirements of the HSR Act before acquiring voting securities of Scientific Games in June 2012.  As a result of these acquisitions, MacAndrews & Forbes held Scientific Games voting securities in excess of $68.2 million, the HSR reporting threshold then in effect.  Although certain stock acquisitions relating to a previous HSR Act notification are exempt from additional notice and waiting requirements, MacAndrews & Forbes’ June 2012 acquisitions of Scientific Games voting securities fell outside of the five-year time period for that exemption.

The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act of 1976, an amendment to the Clayton Act, imposes notification and waiting period requirements on individuals and companies over a certain size before they consummate acquisitions resulting in holding stock or assets above a certain value, which was $68.2 million in 2012 and is currently $70.9 million.

Federal courts can assess civil penalties for premerger notification violations under the HSR Act in lawsuits brought by the Department of Justice.  For a party in violation of the HSR Act the maximum civil penalty is $16,000 a day.