Click Link Below:
Former Prosecutor from Shuttered Antitrust Division Office Joins White Collar Firm
Tag Archives: Antitrust
Noted Antitrust and Disaster Fraud Prosecutor Joan E. Marshall Joins GeyerGorey LLP
Joan Marshall who prosecuted the worldwide vitamins cartel and brought a series of fraud cases in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, has joined the firm as a partner. Previously, Ms. Marshall was with the US DOJ Antitrust Division in the Dallas Field Office. She is the tenth former DOJ prosecutor to join the new boutique law firm in less than a year.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRLog (Press Release) – Aug. 6, 2013 – WASHINGTON, D.C. — GeyerGorey LLP is pleased to announce that Joan E. Marshall, a former Department of Justice prosecutor, has joined the firm as partner. Ms. Marshall will open a new office for the firm, in Dallas, where she will be resident.
Ms. Marshall comes to GeyerGorey from the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, where she also served as a prosecutor on the Department’s Disaster Fraud Task Force and its predecessor, the Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force. While with the Department of Justice, Ms. Marshall supervised numerous multi-agency investigations of bid rigging, price fixing, mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, bribery, perjury and obstruction of justice.
Ms. Marshall had the distinction of breaking the Dallas Field Office’s acclaimed vitamins cartel case and helped to devise, structure and carry out what became one of the most comprehensive international investigations and prosecutions of all time, resulting in more than $1 billion in collected criminal fines. She led the Antitrust Division’s bribery prosecutions involving construction of the levees surrounding New Orleans after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. Her experience spans investigations and prosecutions involving numerous industries including wholesale groceries, milk, seafood, medical equipment, oilfield supplies, military moving and storage, road and building construction, and municipal finance.
“We are thrilled that Joan has decided to join us,” said Hays Gorey. “She adds deep experience with numerous enforcement agencies and compliments our experience in key industries like oil and gas exploration, not to mention the fraud piece. Our corporate compliance and competition expertise is a perfect fit in the Dallas-Ft. Worth market, which has the largest concentration of corporate headquarters in the United States.”
Ms. Marshall is a frequent speaker on antitrust enforcement and fraud prevention and detection and has developed numerous training programs. She is a recipient of the United States Department of Justice, Assistant Attorney General’s Award and certificates of appreciation from the United States Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, and the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command, Major Procurement Fraud Unit.
Robert Zastrow, who was Verizon’s Assistant General Counsel for 15 years before co-founding the firm in October 2012, added, “Joan’s extensive background and expertise nicely complements our firm’s unique philosophy and enriches our solid bench in the White Collar world.” Co-founder, Brad Geyer added: “We are very involved in servicing the government contractor and the non-profit and non-governmental organization community and we are excited to roll in Joan’s disaster fraud experience into our overall product offerings. It is also unusual to have career prosecutors in one firm that worked on the highest profile matters on both the criminal and civil worlds. Joan will give us a strategic presence in the Dallas market, which is home to companies in the airline, technology, energy, banking, medical and defense contracting sectors.”
Headquartered in Washington, D.C., GeyerGorey LLP specializes in white collar criminal defense, particularly investigations and cases involving allegations of economic crimes, such as violations of the federal antitrust laws (price fixing, bid rigging, territorial and customer allocation agreements), procurement fraud, securities fraud, foreign bribery (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) and qui tam (False Claims Act) and other whistleblower actions. The firm also conducts internal investigations of possible criminal conduct and provides advice regarding compliance with U.S. antitrust, anti-bribery and other laws.
Phillip Zane’s Game Theory: Ten Years On
Phillip Zane be the only attorney whose colleagues and clients might expect to see an open book on games and strategy on his desk.
Ten years ago this spring, Zane published The Price Fixer’s Dilemma: Applying Game Theory to the Decision of Whether to Plead Guilty to Antitrust Crimes, 48 Antitrust Bull. 1 (2003), which changed the way law-and-economics scholars and sophisticated prosecutors and defense counsel analyze whether, and when, to settle high-stakes antitrust cases.
Zane’s article strongly suggested that in a number of common situations, pleading guilty (or even seeking the protections of the corporate leniency program) is not always justified. Zane’s article used a repeated, or iterative, version of the prisoner’s dilemma to demonstrate that pleading guilty was not always the best strategy for antitrust defendants facing criminal prosecution and civil liability in multiple proceedings or jurisdictions.
At the time, a few of the brainier Antitrust Division prosecutors breathed a sigh of relief when the defense bar did not seem to notice and they failed to incorporate Zane’s research into their negotiating strategies.
In 2007, Zane published “An Introduction to Game Theory for Antitrust Lawyers,” which he used in a unit of an antitrust class he taught at George Mason University School of Law. That paper was another milestone on the way to making game theory concepts accessible and useful to the antitrust defense bar.
Zane’s work, which now used game theory to criticize the settlement of the second Microsoft case and the Government’s approach to conscious parallelism, as well as the leniency program, was met with official grumblings within the Antitrust Division.
GeyerGorey LLP was founded on the principle that the chances for achieving the best possible outcome are maximized by having access to multiple, top-notch, cross-disciplinary legal minds that are synced together by an organizational and compensation structure that encourages sharing of ideas and information in client relationships.
As international enforcement agencies sprouted and developed criminal capabilities and as more hybrid matters included prosecutors from US enforcement agency components with sometimes overlapping jurisdictions, such as the Antitrust, Criminal, Civil and Tax Divisions of the Department of Justice, and the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies, particularly the Securities and Exchange Commission, it became apparent that Zane’s game-theoretic approach has application in almost every significant decision we could be called upon to make. Since Zane has joined us we have been working to factor in the increased risks associated with what we call hybrid conduct (conduct that violates more than a single statute). Our tools of analysis for identifying risks for violations of competition laws, anti-corruption laws, anti-money-laundering laws, and other prohibitions, include sophisticated game-theoretic techniques, as well as, of course, the noses of former seasoned prosecutors, taking into account, each particular client’s tolerance for risk.
To take one example, an internal investigation might show both possible price fixing and bribery of foreign government officials. How, given the potential for multiple prosecutions, should decisions to defend or cooperate be assessed? And how might such decisions trigger interest by the Tax Division, the SEC, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or other regulators. When should a corporation launch an internal investigation? When should it make a mandatory disclosure? What should it disclose and to which agency, in what order? When should it seek leniency and when should it instead stand silent? These tools are valuable in the civil context as well: When should it abandon a proposed merger or instead oppose an enforcement agency’s challenge to a proposed deal?
These are truly the most difficult questions a lawyer advising large corporations is required to address. We are well positioned to help answer these questions.
DLA Piper’s Robert Connolly pens MLEX article regarding “The DOJ Antitrust Division’s policy on independent compliance monitors: is it misguided?”
Friend of the Firm, Robert Connolly, former Chief of the Philadelphia Field Office of the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice, now resident in DLA Piper’s Philadelphia Office last week penned an important contribution for MLEX regarding DOJ’s evolving policy regarding compliance monitors: “The DOJ Antitrust Divsion’s policy on independent compliance monitors: is it misguided?”
Allen Grunes quoted regarding Publicis-Omnicom Merger in Bloomberg News
Allen Grunes shared his perspective with Bloomberg News regarding the proposed Publicis-Omnicom Merger. Click Below:
Publicis-Omnicom Merger Seen as Drawing Antitrust Look
The Hill: Lobbying World
Click Here: The Hill: Lobbying World (June 25, 2013)
Maurice E. Stucke Curriculum Vitae
Leading Antitrust Lawyers and DOJ Alumni Allen P. Grunes and Maurice E. Stucke Join GeyerGorey LLP
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.
Phillip C. Zane, Antitrust Practitioner and Scholar, Joins GeyerGorey LLP
GeyerGorey LLP announced today that Phillip C. Zane has joined the Firm as of counsel. Mr. Zane, a former federal appellate clerk, has counseled and defended clients accused of serious crimes and civil offenses for more than twenty years. He received his law degree cum laude from New York University School of Law, and holds a bachelor’s degree in Economic History from Pomona College. Proficient in speaking or reading a number of languages a number of languages, including Swedish, Russian, German, Polish, and Spanish, he has conducted internal investigations of alleged wrongdoing in more than twenty countries and has defended companies and individuals accused of participating in international cartels.
Mr. Zane’s practice areas include civil and criminal antitrust law (including litigation and counseling), fraud, money laundering, foreign asset control, public corruption, whistleblower cases, and national security issues. He will also continue to counsel nonprofit organizations on compliance with tax law and other matters.
Mr. Zane’s work has changed the course of the law. His representation of one of the nation’s leading law firms led to a clarification and narrowing of the meaning of “arising under an Act of Congress relating to patents,” which resulted in the dismissal of a malpractice claim against that law firm. His application of game theory to decisions of whether and when a client should plead guilty to a criminal antitrust offense contributed to the adoption of a new statute limiting civil liability for antitrust offenders who accept responsibility for criminal offenses. His groundbreaking scholarship on criminal procedure and criminal sentencing affected how many scholars, practitioners, and judges think about maximum fines in cases involving the most serious financial crimes. In a case he brought on behalf of an indigent client, he convinced the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to recognize a property interest in subsidized housing benefits, establishing a new procedural due process right in the District of Columbia.
“Mr. Zane is truly a lawyer’s lawyer, and we are delighted that he is joining our Firm,” said managing partner Bradford Geyer.
Mr. Zane will be resident in the Washington office.
Justice Department Reaches Settlement with Anheuser-Busch InBev and Grupo Modelo in Beer Case
Divestitures of Piedras Negras Brewery, Perpetual Licenses to Modelo Beer Brands, and Other Assets Will Maintain Competition in the Beer Industry Nationwide
WASHINGTON – The Department of Justice announced today that it has reached a settlement with Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (ABI) and Grupo Modelo S.A.B. de C.V. that requires the companies to divest Modelo’s entire U.S. business – including licenses of Modelo brand beers, its most advanced brewery, Piedras Negras, its interest in Crown Imports LLC and other assets – to Constellation Brands Inc., in order to go forward with their merger. The department said the proposed settlement will maintain competition in the beer industry nationwide, benefitting consumers.
Today’s proposed settlement was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. If approved by the court, the settlement will resolve the department’s competitive concerns.
On Jan. 31, 2013, the department filed an antitrust lawsuit against ABI and Modelo alleging that ABI’s $20.1 billion acquisition of the remaining interest in Modelo that ABI did not already own, as originally proposed, would substantially lessen competition in the market for beer in the United States as a whole and in at least 26 metropolitan areas across the United States. The department alleged that the transaction would result in consumers paying more for beer and would limit innovation in the beer market.
“Before the merger, there were two competitors – Modelo and ABI – and ABI owned a substantial stake in Modelo. The companies’ proposed merger would have reduced those two competitors to one – ABI. The proposed settlement announced today will create an independent, fully integrated and economically viable competitor to ABI. This is a win for the $80 billion U.S. beer market and consumers,” said Bill Baer, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “If this settlement makes just a one percent difference in prices, U.S. consumers will save almost $1 billion a year.”
The settlement requires ABI and Modelo to divest Modelo’s entire U.S. business to Constellation or to an alternative purchaser if for some reason the transaction with Constellation cannot be completed. Specifically, the settlement requires ABI and Modelo to divest: the Piedras Negras brewery, Modelo’s newest, most technologically advanced brewery; perpetual and exclusive licenses of the Modelo brand beers for distribution and sale in the United States; Modelo’s current interest in Crown – the joint venture established by Modelo and Constellation to import, market and sell certain Modelo beers into the United States; and other assets, rights and interests necessary to ensure that Constellation is able to compete in the U.S. beer market using the Modelo brand beers, independent of a relationship to ABI and Modelo.
The licensed brands include all seven brands that Modelo currently offers (through its distributor, Crown) in the United States – Corona Extra, Corona Light, Modelo Especial, Negra Modelo, Modelo Light, Pacifico and Victoria – as well as three brands not yet offered in the United States, but currently sold by Modelo in Mexico – Pacifico Light, Barrilito and León. The licenses include rights that will give Constellation the ability to adapt to changing market conditions in the United States.
Constellation has committed to expand the capacity of Piedras Negras in order to meet current and future demand for the Modelo brands in the United States, and that commitment is a condition of the proposed settlement. The settlement also sets milestones for the expansion of the Piedras Negras brewery. In order to enable Constellation to compete in the United States during the time it takes to expand the Piedras Negras brewery’s capacity to brew and bottle beer, the settlement requires ABI to enter into interim supply and transition services agreements with Constellation. These agreements are time-limited to ensure that Constellation will become a fully independent competitor to ABI as soon as practicable.
ABI and Modelo originally proposed selling Modelo’s stake in Crown to Constellation and entering into a 10-year supply agreement to provide Modelo beer to Constellation to import into the United States. The department rejected that purported fix because it would have eliminated the Modelo brands as an independent competitive force in the United States beer market. Unlike the companies’ original proposal, which left Constellation with no brewing assets and beholden to ABI for the supply of beer, the proposed settlement ensures that Constellation, or an alternative purchaser, will have independent brewing assets and the ownership of the Modelo beer brands for sale in the United States in perpetuity. As a result, Constellation will fully replace Modelo as a competitor in the United States.
ABI is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Belgium, with headquarters in Leuven, Belgium. ABI brews and markets more beer sold in the United States than any other firm, with a 39 percent market share nationally. ABI owns and operates 125 breweries worldwide, including 12 in the United States. It owns more than 200 different beer brands, including Bud Light – the best-selling brand in the United States – and other popular brands such as Budweiser, Busch, Michelob, Natural Light, Stella Artois, Goose Island and Beck’s.
Modelo is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Mexico, with headquarters in Mexico City. Modelo is the third-largest brewer of beer sold in the United States, with a seven percent market share nationally. Modelo owns Corona Extra–the top-selling beer imported into the United States. Its other popular brands sold in the United States include Corona Light, Modelo Especial, Negra Modelo, Victoria and Pacifico. Crown imports, markets and sells Modelo’s brands into the United States. ABI currently holds a 35.3 percent direct interest in Modelo and a 23.3 percent direct interest in Modelo’s operating subsidiary Diblo.
Constellation, headquartered in Victor, N.Y, is a beer, wine and spirits company with a portfolio of more than 100 products, including Robert Mondavi, Clos du Bois, Ruffino and SVEDKA Vodka. It produces wine and distilled spirits, with more than 40 facilities worldwide.
The proposed settlement, along with the department’s competitive impact statement, will be published in the Federal Register, consistent with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act. Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed settlement within 60 days of its publication to James Tierney, Chief, Networks and Technology Enforcement Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 7100, Washington, D.C. 20530. The comments will be published in the Federal Register. At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the court may enter the final judgment upon a finding that it serves the public interest.