Category Archives: Latest Firm News

“Bring Back Antitrust ” by David Dayen

Posted on by

I thought readers might be interested in this article “Bring Back Antitrust” by David Dayen in the Fall issue of The American Prospect. The headline paragraph of the article is:

“Despite low inflation and some bargain prices, economic concentration and novel abuses of market power are pervasive in today’s economy—harming consumers, workers, and innovators. We need a new antitrust for a new predatory era.”

The article’s focus is market concentration resulting from mergers and alleged anticompetitive practices.  The article has a decidedly progressive tilt, arguing that the current state of concentration in most industries is harmful for consumers. For example, some may cringe at this statement: “Since the Reagan Justice Department neutered antitrust enforcement, a posture substantially ratified by increasingly conservative courts….”   But the article also cites scholarly studies:

            John Kwoka, an economics professor at Northeastern University, collected retrospective data on 46 closely studied mergers, and found that 38 of them resulted in higher prices, with an overall average increase of 7.29 percent. In cases where the Justice Department imposed some sort of condition for accepting a merger, like divestiture of some product lines or bans on retaliation against rivals, the price increases were even higher, ranging from 7.68 percent to 16.01 percent. By this analysis, consumers don’t benefit at all from merger activity, as market power overwhelms whatever efficiency gains.

Two former colleagues of mine, Allen Grunes and Maurice Stucke were quoted in the article. Despite the merger/concentration focus of the article, I was interviewed by Mr. Dayen about cartel enforcement. I was quoted in the article relating to the Antitrust Division’s closing of four field offices in January 2013, including the Philadelphia Field Office where I was Chief. (They could have just asked me to leave—they didn’t have to close the whole office :-).  “The shuttering of over half of the field offices damaged agency morale. The remaining offices can’t cover the territory,” says Robert Connolly, chief of the field office in Philadelphia when it was closed. “I think there’s a sense that the Antitrust Division is not that interested in local and regional cases.” To me, the bigger picture was also that the regional offices were also incredibly successful in fighting international cartels. For example, the prosecution of international cartels was jumped started with the successful prosecution of the ADM lysine cartel by the [still open] Chicago field office.  The now closed Dallas office prosecuted the vitamins cartel and my office prosecuted the graphite electrodes and related cartels. All of the Division’s criminal enforcement sections, whether in DC or in the field, have had great success prosecuting international cartels. What mattered was not the address of the staff handling the case, but their talent/experience, interest in antitrust enforcement and pride in being a public servant. The Division lost a lot of that “stuff.” But while the field office closings was a setback, obviously the Division marches on with great success.

“Bring Back Antitrust” is full of the history of antitrust enforcement, discussion of important cases, both famous and not so much, and offers a point of view that may get some attention in the upcoming presidential election.

Thanks for reading.

PS.  There is also an opinion piece in the Washington Post (here) that discusses “Bring Back Antitrust.”

Wealthy Max Limited Files Suit Against The Treasury, Mint And Bureau Of Customs And Border Protection In The U.S. District Court In Philadelphia

Posted on by

PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 29, 2015 /PRNewswire/ — The Wealthy Max Limited (Wealthy Max) legal defense team today filed a lawsuit against the US Treasury, US Mint and Bureau of Customs and Border Protection along with Jacob J. Lew, Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, Rhett Jeppson, Deputy Director of the US Mint, and R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection for improperly seizing three shipments of damaged coins that were sent to the Mint under the Mutilated Coin Redemption Program with a total value of $3.25 million.  The suit argues that the government violated the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (“CAFRA”) and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution by failing to notify Wealthy Max of the seizure within 60 days or file a civil forfeiture complaint within 90 days.  Wealthy Max is involved in recovering mutilated coins that are a by-product of the metal recycling business in China.  The company has an unblemished 13 year record with over 150 shipments of mutilated coins accepted by the US Mint.  The three shipments that have been mysteriously seized were delivered on June 26 and October 16, 2014 and March 25, 2015.  Multiple requests to the relevant government authorities by the company for the status of its shipments and later for the return of its property have been ignored.

“Wealthy Max has filed this suit against the US government authorities to recover its property, or receive compensation, as is its right under the law,” said Bradford L. Geyer of GeyerGorey LLP.  “CAFRA was enacted to prevent just this type of government overreach in the seizure of private property.  The rules are clear, if the government seizes property it has to provide notification to the owner within 60 days and file a complaint for forfeiture within 90 days.  In this case the government has utterly failed to comply with the law.” The total value of the three shipments is over $3.25 million, which Wealthy Max would have used to source additional coins for redemption in the program.  That these funds have been indefinitely frozen has had a significant negative impact on the company’s business and opened the US Mint’s program to questions about its trustworthiness. “For the last 13 years Wealthy Max has been a participant in good standing in the Mint’s program, which makes the government’s de facto confiscation of its property all the more disappointing.  This action is a clear violation of CAFRA and of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, and as such needs to be corrected as soon as possible.  For the sake of fairness and justice the government will need to either return the shipments or compensate our client for their full value,” concluded Geyer.

CCC’s: Welcome Ai Deng, Phd. (Bates White)–Guest Post

Posted on by

 by 

I am pleased to welcome Ai Deng, Phd., to Cartel Capers as a guest poster.  Ai is an economist with Bates White Economic Consulting.  I met Ai at some of the antitrust conferences that Bates White sponsors and I’ve always enjoyed his economist’s insight on various cartel related issues.  Ai’s first post is below.

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

Competition authorities and regulatory bodies are resolute in encouraging companies to beef up their corporate compliance programs. As an example, in the LIBOR investigation, the DOJ required Barclay’s and other banks to “maintain or develop monitoring systems or electronic exception reporting systems that identify possible improper or unsubstantiated submissions.” [1]Similar agreements were reached between various banks and the CFTC. Good compliance effort by the corporation apparently also pays—in the recent FOREX investigation, the DOJ took notice of Barclay’s efforts and stated in its plea agreement: “The parties further agree that the Recommended Sentence is sufficient, . . . , in considering, among other factors, the substantial improvements to the defendant’s compliance and remediation program to prevent recurrence of the charged offense.”

To better detect various forms of market manipulation, corporate compliance officials can employ a data analytic technique called an “empirical screen.” This technique has already been used by antitrust authorities all over the world, and it is getting increased attention in recent academic literature. An empirical screen is a metric that is based on data and a pre-specified formulation. The value of the metric changes as the likelihood of market manipulation increases or decreases. When the value crosses a certain threshold, a “red flag” for suspicious activity goes up. When this occurs, additional investigation of the causes may be warranted.

“Detection” techniques similar to empirical screens are widely used in the credit card and telecommunications industries for fraud detection purposes. AT&T Labs’ researchers Becker, Volinsky, and Wilks (2010) noted that AT&T implemented its fraud detection system (the Global Fraud Management System) nearly 20 years ago, in 1998.[2] AT&T’s team of data experts continuously analyzes data and devises new techniques to detect fraud. Credit card companies also invest significantly in fraud detection efforts. Organizations that are contemplating establishing or strengthening their compliance programs can also benefit from adopting screening and detection analytics. In the recent Law360 article “What Compliance Officials Must Know About Market Screening” available here, I focus on two important practical issues that have not yet been adequately addressed but which are crucial for a successful deployment of empirical screen techniques.  If you don’t have access to Law 360 and would like a copy of my article, please contact me at [email protected].

_______________________________________

1.      Deferred Prosecution Agreement at § vi (“Monitoring and Auditing”), United States v. Royal Bank of Scotland (D. Conn. Feb. 5, 2013), available athttp://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/28201326133127414481.pdf.

2.    Richard A. Becker, ChrisVolinsky, and Allan R. Wilks, “Fraud Detection in Telecommunications: History and Lessons Learned,” Technometrics 52, no. 1 (2010): 20–33.

Wealthy Max Limited Files Motion to Dismiss Civil Forfeiture Case in U.S. District Court in NJ

Posted on by

NEWARK, N.J., Oct. 20, 2015 /PRNewswire/ — The Wealthy Max Limited legal defense team filed a motion to dismiss the civil forfeiture case brought by the US Attorney for the District of New Jersey. The motion is filed with the US District Court in New Jersey and seeks the immediate release of $2,388,091.18 that the company is owed by the US Treasury for coins submitted to the US Mint’s Mutilated Coin Redemption Program.  The original complaint was filed in March 2015 and claimed that Wealthy Max and its Foshan, China based affiliate that administers its quality assurance program, ( hereinafter “Wealthy Max”), and several other recycling companies, had attempted to pass counterfeit US coins through the US Mint’s program.

The motion to dismiss cites multiple inconsistencies in the original complaint and the fact that there has been no direct proof of counterfeiting, or of a conscious attempt to cheat the US government. The original complaint expressed doubts that Wealthy Max and other recycling companies with links to China could source the number of coins claimed through scrap metal exported from the US to China.  This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scale and organization of the Chinese metal recycling industry.

“We are filing the motion to dismiss on behalf of Wealthy Max because we believe the complaint brought by the US Attorney’s Office has a number of errors relating both to points of law as well as to misunderstandings about our client’s business,” said Bradford L. Geyer of GeyerGorey LLP.  “In our opinion we do not believe that many of the points in the government’s complaint could be substantiated as they are either speculative or based on incorrect assumptions about the industry in question.  The original complaint and the amended complaint, regrettably, also contain incorrect information.  For instance, the amended complaint in paragraph 35 claims that pennies have never been submitted through the Mutilated Coin Redemption Program and only small parts of shipments have contained nickels.  In actuality, from 2002 through 2006, Wealthy Max submitted to the U.S. Mint, and the U.S. Mint accepted 178 metric tons of pennies and from 2002 through 2009, Wealthy Max submitted to the U.S. Mint, and the U.S. Mint accepted, 31 metric tons of nickels.

“Under the circumstances, I am mystified how allegations in paragraph 35 and other questionable allegations found throughout the complaint could still remain in the government’s pleadings.  The reason the U.S. Mint has seen fewer nickels or no pennies in recent years is because redemption rates do not allow those coins to be redeemed profitably.  This economically rational behavior and many other reasonable actions are presented in the complaint as if they part of some nefarious scheme,” added Geyer.

The scrap reclamation operations in question process millions of tons of non-ferrous scrap metal each year.  The irony is that since this investigation has effectively shut down the Mutilated Coin Redemption Program, hundreds, perhaps thousands of tons of clad U.S. coins have been accumulating at scrap reclamation facilities in China that continue to find coins as a by-product of aluminum scrap reclamation.  According to Geyer, “We have advised scrap reclamation facilities in China to keep the faith and to stockpile and secure their mutilated coins.  We will soon determine whether the United States Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security intend to kill the program.  As a practical matter, we probably have a 30-90 day time window before the scrap reclamation companies in China have to give up on the U.S. Mint giving full faith and credit to its coinage, and simply send the coins to local smelters.

“You could never guess from the complaint that Wealthy Max has an unblemished past performance record that spans 13 years with over 150 shipments accepted by the U.S. Mint and converted into coin roll.  What we have as a matter of public record is one alleged non-conforming shipment awash in a 13 year sea of conforming shipments from a responsive government contractor with an unblemished past performance record,” said Geyer.

“The shipment in question was accepted and converted into coin roll by the U.S. Mint in June 2014 and the government provides notice that its payment was confiscated almost 11 months later?  I am not sure how far the government can stretch civil forfeiture rules, but its conduct in this investigation strikes me as unacceptable.  For these and other reasons and, in the interest of fairness, we believe that this case should be dismissed and our client’s funds unfrozen as quickly as possible,” concluded Geyer.

The US Mint’s Mutilated Coin Redemption Program was established in 1911 and allows individuals and organizations to return damaged US coins to the Mint and be paid on the basis of the weight of the coins returned.  The Mint then melts the coins down and uses the resulting metals in the production of new coins.  Americans may be surprised to learn that coins jingling in their pockets today could actually be manufactured from coins minted by the U.S. Mint in prior centuries.

Wealthy Max Limited is a Hong Kong based company.  The company is involved in recovering mutilated coins that are a by-product of the metal recycling business, and its operations in China collect, sort, wash and visually inspect coins it receives from scrap aluminum processors who process millions of tons of aluminum scrap materials.  The aluminum comes from multiple sources including scrapped automobiles and other consumer and industrial goods.  Before being melted down, the scrap metal is hand sorted to remove any non-aluminum items including copper wire, glass, plastic and coins.  This sorting is done by well-trained individuals who further sort the coins by country and denomination.  The exponential growth of the Chinese scrap industry, extensively documented in other forums and contexts, has enabled millions of tons of waste to be sorted in this manner (obviating the need for extensive use of water or electricity and substantially reducing carbon emissions) which results in purer, more efficient smelting.

SOURCE GeyerGorey

 

Further information attached

20151020 Memo of Law in Support of MTD Exhibit A Internal Advice Request – Entry requirements of mutilated coins – FinCen Form 105 Exhibit B 20150821 letter to AUSA’s Wealthy Max (1) WM MTD PROPOSED ORDER WM MTD

SCCE Compliance and Ethics Conference–Las Vegas

Posted on by

 by 

Emtrain

I had a great time at the SCCE Compliance and Ethics Conference in Las Vegas.  I am an Antitrust Expert for Emtrain, a leading producer of online compliance and ethics training material.  Emtrain had a booth in the vendor Exhibit Hall and I was able to spend some time with Janine Yancey and the rest of the Emtrain staff.

I also co-presented a panel with Barbara Sicalides, a partner at Pepper Hamilton.  Barbara and I have known each other for many years.  I was the Chief of the Antitrust Division field office in Philadelphia so I have had a great deal of experience as an antitrust prosecutor.  Ms. Sicalides is leading attorney in defending antitrust cases, providing antitrust counseling and compliance and ethics training to corporations.  Our presentation was titled:  “CEO’s (and salespeople too) Say The Darndest Things: How an Ill- Advised Statement or Email Can Start an Antitrust Investigation or Lawsuit”  The program was a caution that while every CEO and salesperson would like to “crush the competition” and “dominate the market,” it is not always wise to say this publicly or in an email.  We both had numerous examples about how poorly worded statements and emails caused a mountain of litigation.  We also discussed how training can sensitize employees to how certain statements (antitrust buzz words) can be misconstrued.  Barbara and I have an article coming out soon in the SCCE magazine that is basically a recap of the program. The  PowerPoint is also available on the SCCE website, or let me know and I can send you a copy.

This was my second SCCE Compliance and Ethics conference and like the first, it was exciting to meet new people and attend a few programs. It also is a very visual reminder of the enormous resources that companies are putting into their compliance and ethics programs.  Barbara and I both hope to see you in Chicago next year.

CCC’s: Some After Thoughts From An FTAIA Conference

Posted on by

 by 

I went to a very interesting conference on the FTAIA a few weeks ago.  I’ve been a bit busy so haven’t had a chance to post.  But, FTAIA issues aren’t going to be settled anytime soon, so here goes.

On September 27 I was fortunate to be able to attend the conference Extraterritoriality of Antitrust Law in the US and Abroad: A Hot Issue. The conference was sponsored by George Washington Law School and Concurrences.  Application of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act (FTAIA) is indeed a hot issue. And with the capacitors investigation being the next big thing in international cartel enforcement, I boldly predict the FTAIA is going to continue to be a hot issue.

There was a number of interesting panels and insightful discussions at the conference.  Judge Dianne P. Wood, Chief Judge of the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was a terrific choice as the keynote speaker. Before the joining the Court of Appeals, Judge Wood was instrumental in many difference roles in promoting competition law internationally and fostering cooperation among the world’s competition law community. I was in the Antitrust Division when Judge Wood was a Deputy Assistant Attorney General overseeing all international matters.  Judge Wood traced the history of international cartel enforcement and cooperation from when the US had a monopoly, then the US and EU had a duopoly, and now there is at least an oligopoly of cartel enforcement with more nations joining as time passes.

Judge Wood also discussed the fact that the FTAIA is not a subject-matter jurisdiction limitation on the power of the federal courts but a component of the merits of a Sherman Act claim involving nonimport trade or commerce with foreign nations.  The first significant difference is that if application of the FTAIA were a jurisdictional issue it could be raised at any time. If brought to the court’s attention that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear a case, the case must be dismissed.  And the court is the fact-finder.  But as a substantive element of a Sherman Act offense, whether complaint satisfies the FTAIA is decided on a Motion to Dismiss with all inferences drawn in favor of the plaintiff.

Judge Wood also noted that the Seventh and Ninth Circuit have different standards for measuring whether anticompetitive conduct abroad has a direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable effect on commerce in the United States.  The Ninth Circuit has interpreted the FTAIA requirement of “direct” to mean that the effect on U.S. commerce follow as an “immediate consequence” of the defendant’s conduct. U.S. v. Hui Hsuing, 778 F. 3d 738, 758 (9th Cir. 2014). The Seventh and Second Circuits, on the other hand, have construed the term “direct” in the FTAIA to denote a “reasonably proximate causal nexus.” Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., 775 F.3d 816, 819 (7th Cir. Nov. 26, 2014), as amended (Jan. 12, 2015); Lotes Co. v. Hon Hai Precision Indus., 753 F.3d 395, 410 (2d Cir. 2014).  In most cases there may not be a difference in the outcome depending upon what standard is used.  In fact, the Supreme Court declined to take cert. in the Motorola and AU Optronics cases (see prior post here).  But Judge Wood noted that a Supreme Court decision on FTAIA issue would be welcome.  

Comity

Comity was a major theme of the conference.  Judge Wood noted that comity is fundamentally an Executive Branch consideration.  If a case is properly before a court, (i.e. the court has jurisdiction), it is generally not the court’s job to dismiss the case on comity grounds.

There was another observation on comity that I found insightful.  Daniel Bitton was a panelist and he offered this caution regarding how the US treats foreign nationals.  Imagine, he said, if other countries had sought to extradite Apple executives for the e-book conspiracy?  The point being the US is not the only jurisdiction with anti-cartel laws, and the US needs to be mindful that how we foreign executives are treated under US law may become the way that US executives are treated by foreign jurisdictions.

Mr. Bitton’s example struck home to me because while the Antitrust Division prosecuted the e-books case civilly, the Division always declared Apple’s conduct to be hard-core price-fixing organized at the highest levels of the company.  The Division’s opening brief reads:

 “Apple conspired with five of the six largest U.S. trade book publishers to raise the prices at which consumers purchase electronic books (“e-books”) and eliminate retail price competition…..Stripped of the glitz surrounding e-books and Apple, this is an unremarkable and obvious price-fixing case appropriate for per se condemnation.”

Based on the DOJ’s charging language, the Apple case could have been brought as a criminal case (see a prior post here).

The executive branch does need to be (and generally is) mindful of “Cartel Karma.”  In an earlier post (here), I quoted Forbes columnist Tim Worstall writing about the US reach in the FCPA arena:

It’s most certainly not good economics that one court jurisdiction gets to fine companies from all over the world on fairly tenuous grounds. Who would really like it if Russia’s legal system extended all the way around the world? Or North Korea’s? And I’m pretty sure that the non-reciprocity isn’t good public policy either. Eventually it’s going to start getting up peoples’ noses and they’ll be looking for ways to punish American companies in their own jurisdictions under their own laws. And there won’t be all that much that the U.S. can honestly do to complain about, given their previous actions.

The degree of comity (or respect) competition agencies show (or don’t show) each other will be increasingly important.  For example, I think it was a good thing that the court rejected the Antitrust Division’s request for ten-year prison sentences for certain AU Optronics individuals who were convicted in the TFT-LCD cartel.  I think even seeking the maximum jail sentence request may chill foreign cooperation (including the willingness to extradite to the US).

Another good tip from one of the panelists.  (Ian Simmons I believe, but pardon me if I’ve got this, or anything else wrong in this post).  Mr. Simmons said anytime he is dealing with a confusing, ambiguous statute [and the FTAIA makes anyone’s top ten list], he likes to refresh himself by re-reading the statute.  So here it is (and with the capacitors investigation heating up, many of us will be re-reading the statute often):

§ 6a. Conduct involving trade or commerce with foreign nations

This Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.] shall not apply to conduct involving trade or commerce (other than import trade or import commerce) with foreign nations unless—

(1) such conduct has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect—

(A) on trade or commerce which is not trade or commerce with foreign nations, or on import trade or import commerce with foreign nations; or

(B) on export trade or export commerce with foreign nations, of a person engaged in such trade or commerce in the United States; and

(2) such effect gives rise to a claim under the provisions of this Act, other than this section.

Thanks for reading.

PS.  For those who might be interested,  New York University School of Law and Concurrences Review will host the 2nd Edition of the Conference “Antitrust in Emerging and Developing Economies” at NYU School of Law in New York City on Friday, October 23, 2015. The conference will feature the law, practice and policy in several of the most antitrust-prominent developing nations, including China, India, Brazil, Mexico, and Africa.  More information here.

Antitrust Division Provides Guidance for an Effective Compliance Program

Posted on by

 by  Leave a Comment

On Sept 16, 2015, The Antitrust Division announced that Kayaba Industry Co. Ltd., dba KYB Corporation (KYB) had agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $62 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix the price of shock absorbers installed in cars and motorcycles sold to U.S. consumers.  The plea agreement indicated that KYB would receive credit for instituting an effective compliance program going forward.  The Division had only recently announced that it was possible for a company to get credit for a forward-looking compliance program that change the culture of the company.  This was a big and new step for the Division so there was a great deal of curiosity as to what the company did that the Division considered credit worthy.  Yesterday, the Division filed its sentencing memorandum which gives an outline of the compliance steps that KYB took.

The first thing to note is that the government praised KYB’s cooperation, noting that it cooperated early, the CEO ordered a complete and timely internal investigation, and the company has made employees and documents available that were outside the US.  I would say that early and complete cooperation is probably the most important factor in convincing the government that there has been a change in culture.   But, in the past, that alone would not earn a company any credit for a compliance program.  In its sentencing memorandum, the Division said this about KYB’s compliance efforts:

“KYB’s compliance policy has the hallmarks of an effective compliance policy including direction from top management at the company, training, anonymous reporting, proactive monitoring and auditing, and provided for discipline of employees who violated the policy.” Case: 1:15-cr-00098-MRB Doc #: 21 Filed: 10/05/15.

These steps closely follow the US Sentencing Guidelines outline for an effective compliance and ethics program:  US Sentencing Guidelines, §8B2.1. Effective Compliance and Ethics Program.

At a recent conference, Brent Snyder indicated that more pleas with credit for compliance programs are in the works and will provide a roadmap for what the Division considers an effective compliance programs.  I wrote about that in  a recent blog post (here). [Note:  There was one other plea agreement in the Forex investigation that indicated credit for a compliance program, but that sentencing memorandum has not yet been filed.  Blog post here.]

The credit for a compliance program is a welcome development. But, the current policy raises one question in my mind.  The Division has indicated that it still will not credit “backward looking compliance programs,” that is, compliance programs that have failed.  But, what if KYB had had this compliance program in place all along, yet certain managers violated it?  In that case, the company would not have received credit for the same program?  It will be interesting to see how the Division’s approach to compliance programs evolves.

Thanks for reading.

CCC’s: A Note on Some Upcoming Cartel Related Events

Posted on by

by 

There are three upcoming programs that I want to pass along with a brief mention of why I think each is timely and important.   First, on September 22 the Section of Antitrust Law, Cartel and Criminal Practice Committee is hosting a teleconference on extradition.  On September 28, Concurrences is sponsoring a live program on the FTAIA.  Last up, the Georgetown Global Antitrust Symposium is on September 29, 2015.

The first program is an ABA teleconference: Antitrust and Extradition:  Where Are We Now on September 22 from noon to 1:00 pm ET.  The panel line-up is:

Moderator:  Kathryn Hellings – Hogan Lovells

Speakers:

Stuart Chemtob – Wilson, Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati LLP

Greg DelBigio – Thorsteinssons LLP

Mark Krotoski – Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

I know Katie Hellings, Stu Chemtob and Mark Krotoski as colleagues from my days with the Antitrust Division.  They all have a great deal of experience in international cartel matters and have as good a sense as anyone, not only of where we are now, but where we might be going on extradition.  (As an added bonus, Stu Chemtob knows everyone in the world).  Aside from the real estate auction matters, the vast majority of Antitrust Division defendants are foreign fugitives.  Extradition is a hot, and key topic, in the development of cartel enforcement.

Next up is a program sponsored by Concurrences Review & The George Washington University Law School:  EXTRATERRITORIALITY OF ANTITRUST LAW IN THE US AND ABROAD: A HOT ISSUE.  The program in on Monday, September 28, 2015 from 2:30 PM to 6:30 PM (EDT) in Washington, DC.  You can click on the link for the full details, but here are a couple of highlights:

Opening Keynote Speech
Diane P. WOOD | Chief Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Chicago

Panelists:

Douglas H. GINSBURG, Judge, US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

James FREDRICKS | Assistant Chief, Department of Justice, Antitrust Appellate Section

After the Supreme Court denied cert. in AU Optronics and Motorola Mobility (here), the FTAIA dropped off the radar–for about 5 minutes.  But, on September 2, 2015 the Antitrust Division announced its first criminal case and plea agreement in capacitors.  The Information alleged both direct import commerce and commerce that fell within the Sherman Act because it had a “direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect” on US commerce.  If you think application of the FTAIA was complicated when applied to TFT-LCD screens, (I did), then you ain’t seen noting yet.  LCD screens were a significant component cost of the device they were assembled into.  Capacitors, however, typically cost less than a penny and there can be a couple of hundred of them in a device like a cell phone.   Direct?  Substantial?There will certainly be substantial litigation over these issues, and other FTAIA related head scratchers.  Besides capacitors, FTAIA application is being litigated in other civil cases in lower courts.  I am really looking forward to attending this conference.  I’ll try to take notes and pass them along.

Last, but not least, is the Georgetown Global Antitrust Enforcement Symposium on Tuesday, September 29, 2015. Bates White is one of the sponsors.  The Global Antitrust Enforcement Symposium is a leading forum for lawyers, policymakers, corporate executives, economists, and academics to address current issues in competition law and policy. The faculty includes current and former enforcement officials from the United States, European Commission, Germany, France, Brazil and Mexico.  This forum is often the place to hear about significant policy developments.  I recall last year it was in this forum that Bill Baer first hinted at a change in the Antitrust Division’s policy with regard to compliance programs (here).  Then, in the FOREX investigation, the Division for the first time, gave  company credit in a plea agreement for a compliance efforts (here).  Maybe there will be interesting news this time, if not from the Antitrust Division, perhaps from enforcers from other major jurisdictions.

Thanks for reading.

CCC’s: Kenneth Davidson: Enforcing Antitrust– Leniency, Consumer Redress, and Disgorgement

Posted on by

 by 

With his permission, I am gladly reposting a very interesting commentary written by Kenneth M. Davidson, a Senior Fellow at the American Antitrust Institute on September 1, 2015

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

Over the past 25 years “leniency” policies pioneered by the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice have been enormously successful in identifying and prosecuting unlawful cartel behavior.  That success has been replicated by competition agencies in the European Union and elsewhere.  The key to its success has been to offer immunity to the first cartel member that provides the competition agency with evidence that the cartel exists.  The leniency program has led to billions of dollars in fines and imprisonment in the United States of executives of corporations that participated in the cartel.  Notwithstanding these impressive results, I think the effectiveness of competition law needs to be enhanced by a general adoption of policies that require antitrust violators to disgorge all ill-gotten gains earned from anticompetitive actions.

The need for disgorgement is indicated by some perplexing results that have followed the implementation of leniency program.  Greater enforcement of the laws against cartels and other anticompetitive practices ought, in theory, result in the formation of fewer cartels.  Yet enforcement statistics indicate that the number of cartels identified appears to be rising and, even more surprisingly, cartels that have been successfully prosecuted appear to be reforming at an increasing rate.  Professor John Connor, my colleague at the American Antitrust Institute, probably the leading expert on cartel enforcement, published a study in 2010, Recidivism Revealed, which provides data indicating that the rate at which prosecuted violators recreate cartels has continued to rise.

Connor and another AAI colleague, Professor Robert Lande, who have together tracked antitrust penalties and recoveries from private antitrust actions, have suggested the answer to this seeming anomaly is that fines, imprisonment, and private recoveries are not high enough to deter the formation or reformation of cartels.  Their article, Cartels as Rational Business Strategy: Crime Pays, concludes that the formation of illegal cartels will be deterred only if the penalties exceed the anticompetitive profits times the chances of getting caught.  This “optimal deterrence” theory requires that if a company earns a million dollars in unlawful profits and calculates that it has a fifty percent chance of being caught the fine ought to be two million dollars.  Lande and Connor estimate that the total recoveries from public and private antitrust actions is less than 21 percent of the amount needed to deter violations.

I have argued in past Commentaries on the AAI website that I doubt that cartel members can or do make these kinds of calculations when secretly setting up their cartels.  More important, my reading of the history of law enforcement is that punishment alone is unlikely to suppress crime.  Even drastic actions like cutting off the hands of pickpockets do not appear to have been successful.  Even if higher civil and criminal penalties were more effective, they do nothing to compensate those who have suffered from antitrust violations.

A study published this summer by Professor Andreas Stephan, Public Attitudes to Price Fixing, surveyed attitudes about cartels in the US, UK, Germany and Italy indicates that public support for antitrust enforcement is less than optimal, at least in the US.  Price fixing between supposed competitors was an ideal object for this study.  A majority of those surveyed understood that the cartel agreement is likely to lead to higher prices than the individual companies would charge.  A substantial majority of the public in all four countries believed that price fixing is harmful to consumers on the grounds that it secretly raises prices to consumers, is dishonest and unethical.  Curiously, the majority view that price fixing is harmful was substantially higher in the three European countries than it was in the US.  Even stranger, was the finding that a majority of the public in Europe believed that price fixing is illegal whereas only forty percent of the American public believes that price fixing is unlawful.

Given that antitrust was invented in the US, the billions collected in fines by the Antitrust Division, and the imprisonment of corporate executives by US courts, it is hard to believe that only a minority of Americans believe that price fixing – the most blatant antitrust violation – is unlawful. How might this disparity be explained? One might guess that the higher rates of belief in Europe that antitrust law exists and outlaws price fixing is a fluke based on timing of high profile cases brought by the EU.  I suggest a different reason.  US antitrust law has become so complicated and so infused with law and economics jargon that it is more difficult for the American public to understand what the courts prohibit under a tangled web of laws that are written in arcane language.  The EU treaty adopts American antitrust principles but states them in shorter clearer language.

Two other factors may help explain why there seems to be greater awareness of competition law in Europe.  The first is that EU competition law is seen as a way for Europe to defend its industries from anticompetitive practices by American companies.  The second is that since 2010, the EU has passed a series of regulations that are designed to compensate individuals for anticompetitive overcharges and for losses of profits due to anticompetitive practices.  These regulations have been widely covered in the media.  The EU regulations are intended to make it easier for individuals and companies to prove they have been harmed by antitrust violations and to collect for the damages they have suffered. A person or group need not present separate proof of a violation of EU competition law if the EU or a national competition agency has found the company to have violated the law.  Injured parties need only show their harm.  Furthermore consumers can sue a manufacturing cartel even if they bought from retailers who charged higher prices because the manufactures sold to retailers at fixed higher prices.  In addition, injured parties are entitled to full payment for their losses plus interest on the amounts they were overcharged.

None of this is available under US law.  Moreover, US courts have created numerous procedural hurdles over the past 30 years that make it considerable more difficult for individuals and groups of consumers to collect for damages they have suffered from antitrust violations.  The only significant recent US legislation designed to help those injured by antitrust violations is ACPERA.  This 2004 law helps plaintiffs prove their antitrust claims if the government has already established the violation.  The help to plaintiffs that are entitled to from violators who have obtained leniency comes at a cost to plaintiffs.  They must forgo their right to treble damages if the already proven violator cooperates with the plaintiffs in providing evidence of the violation.  So far this law has not provided much help to plaintiffs. As a result of procedural obstacles created by courts, there are a declining number of cases where US businesses, groups or individuals are able to collect when they are victims of antitrust violations.

The differences in recovery of damages for anticompetitive practices in the US and the EU should not be overstated.  Professors Lande and Connor estimate that, despite procedural hurdles, Americans recover more compensation through private actions than the government obtains from civil and criminal penalties.  Although European law that encourages member states to allow class actions, it does not require their member states to allow lawsuits that combine the claims of all persons harmed by anticompetitive practices.  Nor does European law allow lawyers to be paid contingency fees.  The effect of these two provisions severely undercuts the viability of lawsuits to compensate individuals who have been harmed by competitive violations.  American experience demonstrates that the large expenses of antitrust lawsuits are generally financed by American lawyers who expect to recover those expenses and be compensated by payment of a portion of the recovery of a successful lawsuit.  However due to court created barriers American consumer redress actions have ceased to be a formidable enforcement and consumer protection avenue.   Thus it seems that the European public has more grounds for optimism than do Americans.  The new rights to compensation for antitrust injuries promised by the EU provide hope that, despite clear flaws, their implementation will become effective in contrast to claims in American courts where decisions seem to promise only more difficulties in obtaining redress for those harmed by anticompetitive actions.

The procedural problems in the US and EU with recovery for damages through individual or class actions could be solved by aggressive implementation of disgorgement remedies.  Disgorgement is a long-established doctrine that empowers US courts to require violators of federal law, including the antitrust laws, to pay out all of the ill-gotten gains obtained from their violations.  Disgorgement focuses on the total amount of unlawful gains rather than proof by plaintiffs demonstrating their individual harms. Stripping the violators of their ill-gotten gains would be a substantial improvement in deterrence.  As noted above, Professors Connor and Lande’s extensive research indicates that under current US law the total of antitrust fines, imprisonment and private recovery is far less than the total antitrust harm created by violators whose actions have been shown to be anticompetitive.

After disgorgement, the funds can be distributed to those who can be identified as having been harmed by the violation.  This would alter the focus of public and private antitrust actions from theoretical mathematical models of “allocative efficiency” to putting money in the hands of those who have been harmed by antitrust violations.  Such payments, large and small, would make consumers and businesses aware of how much they have been harmed by anticompetitive behavior and provide the public with understandable reasons to support more vigorous antitrust enforcement.

Where the disgorgement fund exceeds the amounts that are claimed as damages, where the identities of the entities and individuals harmed cannot be fully ascertained, where the costs of distribution of damages exceeds the amounts to be distributed, disgorgement law provides a variety of ways to distribute the excess.  Under the Cy Pres doctrine the court may distribute the funds to non-profit organizations like the AAI or law school antitrust advocacy programs.  Or if it finds no suitable non-profit recipient, remaining funds can be turned over to the federal treasury.

In his law review article Disgorgement As An Antitrust Remedy, Professor Einer Elhauge asks “is it time for disgorgement to assume center stage as an antitrust remedy?”  He has a series of reasons why he believes in disgorgement.  His influential article led to broader acceptance of disgorgement remedies by the FTC in its 2012 statement on disgorgement and by the EU in its 2014 directive on Antitrust Damages.  I believe that it is time for further action to implement disgorgement in both public and private actions and to eliminate the rules that currently deny recovery for antitrust damages.  Routine recovery of full disgorgement can address much of the relative weakness of American public support for antitrust law and strengthen the EU system for compensating those damaged by antitrust violations.  Disgorgement will not eliminate the need for civil and criminal penalties for violations of antitrust law or the need for injunctions to remedy anticompetitive practices, but it will allow enforcement agencies to disentangle the questions of fairness to consumers from the kinds of penalties needed to deter antitrust violations.

CCC’s: If Everyone Else Jumped Off A Bridge, Would You Do That Too?

Posted on by

by 

The “Everybody Was Doing It” defense didn’t work when I was a kid and it didn’t work for Tom Hayes as his defense in the first Libor rate rigging trial.  But, the most I got upon conviction (summary–without trial) was 14 days grounded.  Mr. Hayes got 14 years in prison.  Ouch!

After a nine-week trial in London and seven days of deliberations, Hayes, a 35-year-old former UBS and Citigroup trader, was found guilty on eight counts of conspiracy to defraud. He was immediately sentenced to 14 years in prison.  Hayes was the first Libor rate rigging individual to face trial (here).

Hayes was charged in the UK with being the “ringleader” of the Libor rate rigging scheme.  Hayes claimed that the rate rigging was industry wide. He also claimed he was “confused about everything,” including what rules may have been broken. He added: “As far as I was concerned, any rules I’d broke were retrospectively being applied. And I wasn’t sure … Libor wasn’t a regulated product. We had no compliance training. No rules were outlined to us.” Hayes didn’t deny he knew he was engaging in “dodgy” activity but pleaded “I knew I was operating in a grey area.  I knew that I probably shouldn’t do it but like I said I was participating in an industry wide practice at UBS that pre-dated my arrival and post-dated my departure.  A full story is here in The Telegraph.

Hayes initially agreed to plead guilty and cooperate in return for a lighter sentence. He gave a full confession to Britain’s Serious Fraud Office.  During 82 hours of interviews with SFO investigators in the months following his arrest in December 2012, Hayes admitted the conduct he was charged with. But he told the court he had only confessed because he was desperate to be charged in Britain to avoid extradition to the United States, where he also faces fraud-related charges. [Hayes was charged in the United States on December 12, 2012 with fraud and antitrust counts (here)].  Hayes subsequently withdrew from a cooperation agreement with the SFO and pleaded not guilty in December 2013.

At trial, Hayes appealed to the jury arguing that: a) he was being singled out for an industry wide practice; and b) he had no training on the rules.

“The practice was tried and tested, it was so endemic within the bank (UBS), I just thought … this can’t be a big issue because everybody knows about it … (it was) such an open secret.”  “Senior management were keen to use Libor to effectively lie about their cost of borrowing by 50 to 100 [basis] points and portray a sense of strength,” Mr Hayes told investigators after his arrest in 2012. (here).

Going to trial was the last in a string of poor decisions made by Mr. Hayes–the jury convicted him on 8 counts of fraud and the 14 year sentence immediately followed.

I have to confess, I feel sorry for Mr. Hayes.  A sentence of 14 years seems excessive–although to many I’m sure it seems appropriate for such a widespread financial scandal.  The sentencing poses a dilemma for a Judge and I am glad I am not one.  From my perspective, it seems unfair for one guy to be punished so harshly for an industry wide practice.   Maybe five years would have been sufficient.  I don’t think anyone disputed Hayes characterization that the Libor rigging practice preceded his participation and continued after he left.  But, Hayes wrote everything down  [“(I was) either the stupidest fraudster ever because I wrote everything down, or there was an element of me that genuinely didn’t think about it,” Hayes has said in documents shown to the court.].  And there were tapes–lots of tapes.

There have been other Libor defendants charged so Hayes likely will not be the only individual convicted.  But, it is unlikely any superiors who were aware of the practice will ever be charged.  I don’t have any inside knowledge of this case, but as a general rule there is often little evidence other than the testimony of a subordinate that superiors knew of and approved of the conduct.  But, a subordinate testifying against a superior is subject to legitimate attack on credibility grounds that the defendant would implicate anyone to try to save their own skin.  Those that actively engage in the illegal conduct, like Hayes, often leave a paper (or electronic) trail of evidence.  An assertion that a boss knew of the illegal conduct is generally a one on one credibility test, and a compromised witness is rarely enough to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

A judge, of course can only sentence the individual defendant that has been convicted.  In some ways, the fact that so few involved in the crime may eventually be convicted argues for a higher sentence–like that imposed by the Court here.  If the chance of conviction is small, for sufficient deterrence, the penalty must be high.

Even as a prosecutor, I was saddened by how much an otherwise industrious and law-abiding person could screw up their lives–and adversely affect their families–by not thinking through the consequences of what they were doing.  There are many “bottom-line” reasons why companies ought to have serious ethics and compliance programs, but to me there is no more compelling reason than it is something every company owes their employees.  Yes, work hard and make money for the shareholders–but don’t sacrifice yourself and family in the process.   It ain’t worth it and you’re not going to get a medal if you get caught.  You may get 14 years.

Thanks for reading.