Category Archives: Latest Firm News

3C’s: “Nobody likes to see a competitor get in trouble, but . . .”

Posted on by

by Leave a Comment

Last week I spent a few days at a Consero Corporate and Ethics Forum in San Jose, California. It was a very informative conference that brought together senior compliance executives in an intimate format to discuss many aspects of compliance such as “Internal Investigations: Soup to Nuts.” This was the third major compliance program I have attended since I retired from the Antitrust Division.  Earlier this year I was a speaker at the annual conferences for the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics (SCCE) and Ethics Compliance Officer Association. These conferences have their own personality and I enjoyed each. I have learned an enormous amount about the far-ranging responsibilities compliance attorneys and officers shoulder, often with limited resources. And, having been on the side of the prosecutor (regulator) for so long, I think I have been able to add some ideas to the discussion. Thus, the title of this post “Nobody like to see a competitor in trouble, but….”

The “but” is that when a competitor is in trouble it may be the best time to focus compliance resources on a particular area. Being able to go to management and say, “Company X is embroiled in this investigation and I think it may be something we need to focus on” can be a more persuasive than saying, “We need more resources.” One example may be if a competitor has an issue with a third-party vendor in an emerging market. That would be an ideal time to move any compliance efforts in that location to the top of the heap. In the antitrust area it is very common for investigations to start fairly localized and then spread.  A prime and recent example is the record-breaking auto parts cartel investigation. What started as an investigation in the United States of one auto part has spread to prosecutions involving virtually every auto part except the air freshener hanging from the front view mirror. This quote is from the most recent press release from the DOJ relating to another guilty plea in the auto parts investigation:  “Including today’s charges, 48 individuals have been charged in the department’s ongoing investigation into price-fixing and bid rigging in the auto parts industry.  Additionally, 32 companies have pledged guilty or agreed to plead guilty and have agreed to pay more than $2.4 billion in fines.” (here)  The auto parts investigation not only spread from one product to another, but also from the United States to competition authorities around the world including the EU, China, Japan, and Korea.   The auto parts investigation is an unusually large investigation, but industry “way of life” cartels are fairly common.

* * * * * Click Here for the Rest of the Story* * * * *

New Grant Fraud Case Filed (Americorps)

Posted on by
Maricopa County Community College District Agrees to Pay $4 Million for Alleged False Claims Related to Award of AmeriCorps Education Awards

Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD) has agreed to pay $4.08 million to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act that it submitted false claims to the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) concerning AmeriCorps state and national grants, the Justice Department announced today.  MCCCD is the entity responsible for operating community colleges in Maricopa County, Arizona, and is based in Phoenix.

“Those who receive federal funds must deal with the government openly and honestly,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Joyce R. Branda for the Justice Department’s Civil Division.  “The Department of Justice will ensure that financial assistance provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service is received only by eligible individuals who satisfy CNCS’s mission of promoting service and education.”

CNCS is an independent federal agency that administers AmeriCorps, among other national service programs.  MCCCD obtained AmeriCorps funding for Project Ayuda, a program that proposed to engage students in national service.  In order to receive an AmeriCorps education award, a student had to meet certain service-hour requirements.  MCCCD allegedly improperly certified that students had completed the required number of service hours so that they would earn an education award.  This resulted in CNCS providing education awards to these students.  MCCCD also allegedly improperly received grant funds from CNCS to administer the project.

“Our internal process uncovered MCCCD’s mismanagement, and we worked with the Justice Department to ensure that taxpayer dollars were recovered,” said CNCS’s General Counsel Valerie Green.  “This is an example of how interagency collaboration works.”

“Taxpayers are justifiably outraged when a community fails to receive promised services because national service funds were misused,” said CNCS’s Inspector General Deborah J. Jeffrey.  “We hope that this settlement will deter other grantees from similar misconduct.”

The allegations resolved by this settlement arose from a whistleblower lawsuit filed under the False Claims Act by Christine Hunt, an MCCCD employee.  Under the False Claims Act, private citizens can sue on behalf of the government and share in any recovery.  Hunt’s share of the settlement is $775,827.

This case was handled by the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Civil Division and CNCS’s Office of Inspector General and Office of General Counsel.

The lawsuit is captioned United States ex rel. Hunt v. Maricopa County Community College District; Paula and Richard Vaughn, No. 11-cv-2241 (D. Ariz.).  The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

CCC: Seventh Circuit Rules (Again) in Motorola Mobility

Posted on by

December 1, 2014 by Leave a Comment

The Seventh Circuit issued its opinion in Motorola Mobility on November 26.   Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., 14-8003. In the opinion, written by Judge Posner, the Seventh Circuit panel ruled that the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, (FTAIA) barred Motorola’s lawsuit because the harm was incurred by its foreign subsidiaries and not the parent company itself. The most critical fact in the case was this: “Motorola says that it “purchased over $5 billion worth of LCD panels from cartel members [i.e., the defendants] for use in its mobile devices.” That’s a critical misstatement. All but 1 percent of the purchases were made by Motorola’s foreign subsidiaries.” This key fact led to Motorola’s downfall:

What trips up Motorola’s suit is the statutory requirement that the effect of anticompetitive conduct on domestic U.S. commerce give rise to an antitrust cause of action. 15 U.S.C. § 6a(2). The conduct increased the cost to Motorola of the cellphones that it bought from its foreign subsidiaries, but the cartel-engendered price increase in the components and in the price of cellphones that incorporated them occurred entirely in foreign commerce.

* * * * *  Click Here for the Rest of the Story * * * * *

3C’s: From India “Of Price Bulletins and Dawn Raids”

Posted on by

Guest Post From India: “Of Price Bulletins and Dawn Raids”

by

This post below is from guest contributor Avinash Amarnath.  Avinash practices in New Delhi, India and advises clients across various sectors such as automobiles, financial services, pharmaceuticals, steel, private equity, petrochemicals and electronic lab equipment on Indian competition law.

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

Hello to all readers! Trade associations seem to be the flavor of the day for the CCI these days. Less than 4 days after passing an order fining the Chemists and Druggists Association, Goa, the Competition Commission of India (the “CCI”) has imposed penalties on the Indian Jute Mills Association (“IJMA”), the Gunny Trade Association (“GTA”) and the individuals responsible for their running for indulging in:

a) price fixing of jute packaging material through circulation of daily price bulletins amongst themselves; and

b) limiting and controlling the supply of jute packaging material.

* * * * * Click Here for the Rest of the Story* * * * *

CCC: Greimel’s “Confessions of a Price Fixer”

Posted on by

by

I am posting and recommending an excellent article by Hans Greimel, Asia Editor,Automotive News titled: Confessions of a Price Fixer.

The article discusses some of the “facts of life” known to cartel practitioners, but rarely discussed in print.  The Antitrust Division will give often huge discounts from corporate fines totaling millions of dollars in return for a corporate plea and “complete, continuing cooperation.” That cooperation comes largely in the form of the company’s executives, some of whom are required to plead guilty and serve prison time in the US.  Some highlights from the article:

* * * * * Click Here for the Rest of the Story * * * * *

Is the Antitrust Division Starting a Broad Investigation of Price Fixing in the Generic Pharmaceuticals Market?

Posted on by

Ed. Note:  This post is by Joan Marshall, a partner at GeyerGorey and a former Antitrust Division prosecutor who worked on the global vitamin cartel prosecutions.

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

Last month, Elijah E. Cummings, the [then] ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Senator Bernard Sanders, [then] chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, asked 14 generic drug makers to provide data concerning escalating prices charged for generic pharmaceuticals. (here)  Several recent articles, and filings with the SEC, report that the Antitrust Division is also taking a hard look at the generic pharmaceutical industry (here);(here);(here).

A recent analysis found that half of all generic drugs sold through retailers became more expensive over the past 12 months and the prices paid by pharmacies more than doubled for one out of 11 generics (here)(here). The FDA reports that nearly 8 in 10 prescriptions are filled with generic pharmaceuticals. Americans spent about $325.8 billion on prescription medicines in 2012 (here).  Generics now account for 28 percent of pharmaceutical spending (here).

* * * * * Click Here for the Rest of the Story* * * * *

McLaughlin at BloomBerg: Banks Get December Deadline to Come Clean on FX Rigging

Posted on by

Banks Get December Deadline to Come Clean on FX Rigging

By David McLaughlin

The U.S. Justice Department has given banks about a month to come clean about wrongdoing as it moves closer to wrapping up an investigation into the rigging of currency benchmarks, a person familiar with the probe said.

The banks have met with officials in recent weeks to lay out how they see their liability, said the person, who asked not to be identified because the discussions are confidential. Prosecutors have demanded a full accounting of any misconduct by mid-December, the person said.

*    *    *

Investigations by authorities on three continents are proceeding after six banks, including Citigroup Inc. (C), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and UBS AG (UBSN), agreed to pay $4.3 billion to regulators in Europe and the U.S. Nov. 12 to settle claims that traders colluded with counterparts at other firms in an attempt to manipulate currency rates.

* * * * * Click Here for the Rest of the Story* * * * *

Brazil’s Associative Contract Conundrum

Posted on by

Robert Connolly’s Cartel Capers:

Today’s guest post is from Mauro Grinberg, a former Cade Commissioner in Brazil.  Mr Grinberg heads the law firm Grinberg e Cordovil Advogados.

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

Do you know what an associative contract is? Can you find a good definition for it? No? Do not worry, in Brazil a lot of people are trying to do it, and we still have more questions than answers. In the meantime we have to deal with a law in force that requests merger control for such kind of agreements.

Going a little back, the well-known Brazilian antitrust law, enacted in 1994, created two conditions for a transaction to have to be notified: (i) one of the parties should have revenues, in the year before the signing of the transaction, of R$ 400 million and (ii) the transaction would result in a market share of 20%. It goes without saying that free competition and/or market dominance should be verified but, strangely enough, this condition did not mean much for most of the time.

A new law, enacted in 2011 and which came into force in 2012, when establishing the requirements for merger control, left the market share criterion aside; it was celebrated with a lot of relief because we know that we can use this definition in different ways. So, the big requirement was for (i) one of the parties to have revenues, in the year before the signing of the contract, of R$ 750 million and (ii) another party to have revenues, also in the same year, of R$ 75 million.  

The objective criterion was said to be very easy to understand and it would not oblige a big company that acquires a ma and pa business to bother with merger control. On the other hand, it would leave alone some transactions that, although dealing with low revenues, would affect local communities, like bakeries, delis, gas stations and the like. The authorities realized that some important transactions were easily – and legally – passing under the table.

Going back to the new law, it tried to define what a reportable transaction is, as if definitions of merger, acquisition (including acquisition of assets) or joint venture were needed. In the middle of it, associative contracts – and these without definition – were included. It took lawyers and bureaucrats a lot of thinking until the authority came out with a resolution trying to define the term. It just happens that, whenever a law brings definitions, new definitions will be needed to clarify the former definition.

* * * * * Click Here for the Rest of the Story* * * * *

CCC: Getting the Judge to Budge on the Nudge From Conceivable to Plausible under Twombly

Posted on by

It is not exactly “breaking news” that in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 577 (2007) the Supreme Court held that a complaint may be dismissed if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” In the aftermath of Twombly it became more difficult for plaintiffs to sustain pleadings that relied on reasonable inferences of collusion from parallel conduct. Lower courts took to heart the policy concern expressed inTwombly that the enormous cost of private antitrust litigation could cause defendants to settle non-meritorious suits simply to avoid the expense of litigation. [Also, the threat of frivolous suits that are simply too costly to defend would put a chill on pro-competitive conduct]. But,Twombly has not been the death knell of private antitrust actions. The Supreme Court has also recognized that Congress drafted the antitrust laws with the express purpose of encouraging private enforcement. See Reiter v. Sonone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 344 (1979). And as the Sixth Circuit has noted, “Rational people, after all, do not conspire in the open, and a plaintiff is very unlikely to have factual information that would exclude the possibility of non-conspiratorial explanation before discovery.” Erie County, Ohio v. Morton Salt, 702 F. 3d 860, 869 (2012) (emphasis in original). These policy interests compete as courts weigh on a case-by-case basis whether plaintiffs have “nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” But, it seems it may be easier to budge the judge on the nudge as time has passed from the Twombly decision.

* * * * * Click Here for the Rest of the Story* * * * *

Connolly Cartel Capers: Canadian Cartel News–Volume 2–Tangible Benefits for Corporate Compliance Programs: Show Us the Money

Posted on by

The September 24, 2014, post by James Musgrove, Jun Chao Meng and Joshua Chad of McMillan LLP. is about an important development in Canada in the treatment of corporate compliance programs.

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

On Thursday, September 18, the Canadian Competition Bureau (Bureau) released a Draft Updated Corporate Compliance Bulletin. The Bureau’s Corporate Compliance Bulletin was first released in 1997 and was most recently updated in 2010. The new Draft Bulletin is available for public consultation until November 17, 2014.

While the Draft Bulletin contains a number of updates, the most significant change is the creation of an incentive program that offers reduced fines for leniency program participants who have credible and effective corporate compliance programs. In both the Draft Bulletin and in remarks by the Commissioner of Competition (Commissioner) on September 18, the Bureau made clear that the mere pre-existence of a program will not automatically garner a company favourable treatment. However, the Bureau proposes that where a company has a credible and effective corporate compliance program the Bureau will recommend to the Court and to the Public Prosecution of Canada (PPSC) that the company receive a reduced fine in connection with an application under the Bureau’s Leniency Program. This proposed approach would make the Bureau one of the few worldwide competition authorities to reward companies for having effective compliance programs, even when those programs have failed.
*     *     *
Click Here for the Rest of the Story