Tag Archives: AT&T

GeyerGorey LLP Issues Updated Representative Matters List; Experience is Wide and Deep

Posted on by

Representative Matters

Our attorneys have led and participated in some of the highest profile matters in the past decade, both while in the government and in private practice. We have been involved in the most significant criminal cartel cases, the most important mergers, the most notable civil antitrust investigations, the largest procurement fraud cases, and game-changing antitrust cases that reached the United States Supreme Court. Our collective experience stands as a testament to our work ethic, our drive for excellence, and the trust and responsibility we have been given by our clients and the government.

International Cartels:

  • Led investigation and prosecution of marine contractors engaged in conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition to install deep sea oil platforms
  • Led investigation and prosecution of international freight forwarders engaged in conspiracy to fix prices on international air cargo shipments
  • Led investigation and prosecution of household-goods moving contractors engaged in conspiracy to fix prices for international moving services provided to Department of Defense
  • Investigation and prosecution of graphite electrodes manufacturers
  • Investigation and prosecution of ocean shipping companies
  • Investigation and prosecution of a FTSE 250 engineering company that resulted in the indictment, extradition and conviction of its former chief executive
  • Defended foreign construction company in investigation and prosecution of alleged billion-dollar bid rigging scheme, in related qui tam litigation, and in other related matters
  • Defended foreign vitamin manufacturers in investigations and prosecutions of alleged international price-fixing agreements
  • Defended foreign specialty chemical manufacturers in investigations and prosecutions of alleged international price-fixing agreements
  • Defended U.S.-based executive of foreign company in criminal and civil litigation related to his alleged role in an international cartel to fix prices in the marine supply industry
  • Defended foreign executive of foreign company in criminal and civil litigation related to his alleged role in the conspiracy to fix air cargo rates around the world
  • Defended international freight forwarder in criminal litigation related to its alleged role in an international conspiracy to rig bids on U.S. military shipping contracts
  • Investigation and subsequent prosecution of foreign vitamin manufacturers for price fixing conspiracy

Domestic Price Fixing and Bid Rigging:

  • Defended electrical products manufacturer in first felony prosecution under the Sherman Act and in civil treble damage litigation
  • Represented a class of nurses in litigation against a hospital association and a number of Arizona hospitals
  • Represented the State of Ohio against a number of dairies for allegedly rigging bids of school milk
  • Investigation and prosecution of highway paving contractors in multiple districts for bid rigging
  • Investigation and prosecution of military insignia providers supplying the Army Air Force Exchange System with over 4,000 items of insignia
  • Represented metal drum manufacturer in prosecution for price fixing
  • Investigation of polypropylene bag manufacturers and that resulted in the prosecution of a manufacturer for Buy American Act violations and conspiracy to defraud
  • Investigation and prosecution of nearly 40 cases against paving contractors for conspiring to rig bids in connection with federal and state highway and airport contracts
  • Investigation and prosecution of an auction rigging conspiracy involving auto parts to by the Department of Defense at Defense Reutilization Marketing Offices (DRMO)
  • Investigation and prosecution of multiple electrical construction contractors for conspiring to rig bids for major power wiring contracts associated with steel mills and waste water treatment plants
  • Investigation and prosecution of multiple wholesale grocery companies and bid managers for rigging bids to school districts, hospitals and jails in southern Texas
  • Investigation and prosecution of multiple dairies for rigging bids for school milk sold to districts in Louisiana
  • Investigation and prosecution of crawfish processors for fixing prices paid to crawfish farmers and fishermen
  • Investigation and prosecution of bribery conspiracy involving the reconstruction of the New Orleans levee system after Hurricane Katrina
  • Investigation and prosecution of fire protective services company and its president
  • Investigation and prosecution of an Iraq-based general construction bid rigging scheme
  • Investigation and prosecution of conspiracy to solicit kickback scheme involving security services on a US Agency for International Development contract
  • Investigation and prosecution of fuel theft from an overseas United States military facility
  • Investigation and prosecution of a Europe-based scheme to defraud the Iraqi government by facilitating the fraudulent claim for payment of armored vehicles that were never delivered
  • Represented individual accused of defrauding government defense agency out of hundreds of thousands of dollars of grant money
  • Represented company accused of defrauding government by failing to supply vitamin-enriched food products with the proper level of enrichment
  • Represented large computer software company in internal investigation of improper influence on government contracting process

General Criminal:

  • Defended CEO and three closely-held companies in a multi-state racketeering and tax fraud prosecution
  • Investigation and prosecution of multiple labor racketeering cases ranging from prosecutions of United Mine Worker Union officials for theft of union funds used to pay for the murder of a political opponent of the union president to the prosecution of two Boston-based racketeers for actions associated with their travel to California in connection with a union organizing effort at a San Rafael newspaper
  • Investigation and prosecution of the mayor of a New Jersey town for taking bribes in connection with the permitting of a tank farm at the terminus point of a major Gulf Coast to East Coast pipeline
  • Investigation and prosecution of the most prolific serial bank robber in United States history
  • Investigation and prosecution of the murder for hire of a government witness and one of the largest cocaine importation conspiracies East of the Mississippi River
  • Investigation and prosecution of numerous gun, drug and false identity cases
  • Investigation and prosecution of multiple obstructions of justice, contempt, false statement, witness tampering and perjury cases arising out of grand jury investigations
  • Investigation and prosecution of bank fraud cases
  • Represented individuals before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in appeals from criminal convictions (more than a dozen cases)
  • Defended individual in intelligence community in investigation by DCIS for alleged violations of public corruption statutes (18 U.S.C §§ 207 & 208)
  • Defended individual in criminal investigation by Inspector General of NASA
  • Defended individual in federal bribery investigation
  • Defended government contractor in investigation by the Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture
  • Defended several regional hospitals in various unrelated federal investigations of allegedly fraudulent billing practices, Stark violations
  • Represented hospital CEO in investigation of alleged Stark violations
  • Represented pathology laboratory in healthcare fraud investigation
  • Represented national healthcare company in investigation of allegedly criminal off-label marketing
  • Represented various individuals in applications for presidential pardons

Mergers and Acquisitions:

  • Represented Warner Music in connection with the proposed acquisition of EMI by Universal Music
  • Represented DISH Network in opposition to the proposed acquisition of T-Mobile by AT&T
  • Represented Merck in connection with its acquisition of Schering Plough
  • Represented Simon Properties in connection with its acquisition of Prime Outlets
  • Obtained antitrust clearance in the acquisition of Liquid Container by Graham Packaging
  • Obtained consent decree against nuclear engineering firm which had acquired another firm with the same engineering specialty
  • Represented major home healthcare provider in acquisition valued in excess of $500 million
  • Represented pathology laboratory in merger valued in excess of $100 million
  • Represented foreign mining company in acquisition of US coal mines valued over $1 billion
  • Represented hospital management company in acquisition valued in excess of $500 million
  • Represented individual in several acquisitions of stock each valued in excess of $100 million
  • Represented major over-the-counter pharmaceutical company in four different acquisitions over several years whose values ranged from over $100 million to over $500 million
  • Represented national restaurant chain in acquisition valued at about $1 billion
  • Represented regional hospital chain in acquisition of a hospital valued above $50 million
  • Represented hospital valued in excess of $100 million in sale to state hospital system

Civil Antitrust Matters:.

  • Defended large telecommunications provider in three week trial for alleged exclusionary conduct directed towards telecom services resellers.
  • Represented large telecommunications provider as plaintiff in case alleging monopolization of market for telecom switch software.
  • Represented leading music copyright licensing organization in a decade-long investigation by the Department of Justice
  • Led the investigation of Ticketmaster at the Department of Justice
  • Led major, successful prosecution by United States Department of Justice of conspiracy among twenty-four leading market-makers in NASDAQ stocks, including Goldman, Sachs & Co. and J. P. Morgan Securities,  Inc. who had conspired to maintain spreads between buying and selling prices of NASDAQ stocks
  • Defended large telecommunications provider in multi-year litigation brought by competitive telecom carrier alleging monopolization of market for high speed data services
  • Led successful investigation and prosecution of Salomon Bros Inc. and two hedge funds, Caxton Corporation and Steinhardt Partners, LP, to limit the supply of two-year Treasury notes to the “repo,” or “repurchase agreement,” market
  • Successfully brought the Reagan Administrations ‘s first challenge to a merger (brewing industry)
  • Successfully represented the United States in a litigated matter challenging field of use restrictions in patent licensing agreement in specialty chemicals
  • Successfully represented the United States in challenge to professional rules of conduct limiting competition among accountants in Texas
  • Successfully represented the United States in challenge to acquisition by Texaco, Inc. of an independent oil refining company
  • Represented high-tech electronic service provider with respect to antitrust issues in a bet-the-company patent infringement case
  • Represented sporting goods manufacturer in vacating a consent decree
  • Represented leading music copyright pool in civil antitrust investigation leading to vacating of an earlier consent decree and modification of another consent decree
  • Represented hospital CEO in litigation arising from denial of physician staff privileges

Antitrust Compliance Counseling:

  • Advised large telecommunications provider on its price and product bundling
  • Advised large telecom provider in connection with a joint venture of three carriers to entire the mobile payments market with mobile phones
  • Advised major manufacturer of household appliances on antitrust compliance
  • Advised major manufacturer of high-end kitchen appliances on antitrust compliance
  • Advised major manufacturer of over-the-counter pharmaceutical on antitrust compliance
  • Advised regional airport on state action doctrine and compliance with antitrust laws
  • Advised national trade association on antitrust compliance and Noerr-Pennington doctrine
  • Advised international shipping company on compliance regarding competition, fraud, and foreign corrupt practices
  • Advised African government on contracting and anti-fraud and anti-corruption best practices

Other Civil Litigation:

  • Represented Haiti in multinational investigation and litigation leading to the recovery of money stolen by its former president Jean-Claude Duvalier
  • Represented developers in multiple appeals involving alleged illegal cooperative conversion terms
  • Defended law firm in $10 million professional malpractice action
  • Defended various healthcare providers in numerous different federal investigations of alleged fraud, related qui tam cases, and related whistleblower termination actions
  • Defended CMS contractor in qui tam case
  • Represented regional Medicare Advantage organization in suit against the U.S. Government
  • Defended book distributor and publisher in defamation case
  • Defended author in defamation case
  • Represented gaming company in civil rights action relating to state gaming regulations
  • Defended copyright and trademark owner in intellectual property litigation
  • Defended local retailer of gray market goods in trademark infringement litigation
  • Represented major multinational corporation in suit seeking refund of local corporate franchise tax
  • Represented government contractor in appeal of denial of security clearance
  • Defended employers in cases alleging violation of wage-and-hour statute
  • Represented developers in multiple appeals involving alleged illegal cooperative conversion terms
  • Defended employer in case alleging employment discrimination
  • Defended employer in case alleging sexual harassment
  • Defended employers in cases alleging unlawful discharge

Experience by Industry:

  • Air Cargo
  • Aircraft Parts (Domestic)
  • Airlines
  • Airport Contracts
  • Automobile Dealers (Domestic)
  • Airlines
  • Asset Forfeiture
  • Auction Rigging (Multiple Industries)
  • Banking (International)
  • Baked Goods (Domestic)
  • Baking Soda
  • Book Publishing
  • Bridge Construction
  • Carbon Products
  • Caustic Soda
  • Cell Towers (Domestic)
  • Chemicals (Multiple Products, Domestic and International)
  • Clothing and Textiles (Multiple Products, Domestic and International)
  • Computer Software
  • Construction (Domestic and International)
  • Copyright and Trademark
  • Dairy Products
  • Deep sea Oil Platforms
  • Democratization Programs
  • Electrical Products
  • Embassy Construction
  • Engineering
  • Export-Import Bank Clients (Multiple Industries, International)
  • Food Service Contracts (Multiple Industries, Domestic and International)
  • Financial Institutions (Domestic and International)
  • Fire Protection Services
  • Freight Forwarding (Domestic and International)
  • Fuel Supply (Domestic and International)
  • General Construction (Multiple Industries, Domestic and International)
  • Government Contracts (Multiple Industries, Domestic and International)
  • Graphite Electrodes
  • Highway Construction
  • Hospitals
  • Housing Foreclosure Auctions (Domestic)
  • Information Technology (Multiple Industries, Domestic and International)
  • Industrial Gases (Domestic and Multiple Products)
  • LIBOR
  • Marine Contractors
  • Medical Products (Multiple Products, Domestic and International)
  • Metal Drums
  • Military Insignia (International)
  • Military Moving and Storage
  • Mining and Related Products (Multiple Industries, Domestic)
  • Motor Vehicles (Domestic)
  • Municipal Bonds (Multiple Industries, Domestic and International)
  • Nursing
  • Ocean Shipping (International)
  • Oilfield Supplies
  • Pharmaceuticals (Multiple Products, Domestic and International)
  • Polypropylene bags
  • Rock Salt
  • Seafood
  • Security Contracts
  • School District Contracts (Multiple Industries)
  • Soda Ash
  • Shipping (Multiple Industries, Domestic and International)
  • Slag Removal
  • Telecommunications
  • Tobacco
  • Translation Services
  • Trucking
  • US Agency for International Development Contractors and Grant Recipients
  • Vitamins
  • Warzone
  • Waste Hauling
  • Wholesale Groceries
  • Wireless
  • World Bank Contractors and Grant Recipients (International)
  • Vitamins

 

Experience by Subject Matter:

  • Antitrust (Civil and Criminal)
  • Auction Rigging
  • Bank Robberies (Domestic)
  • Bank Fraud
  • Bid-Rigging
  • Bribery
  • Buy American Act Violations
  • Capital Crimes
  • Cartels (Multiple Products, Domestic and International)
  • Cash Smuggling (International, multiple procurements by multiple governments)
  • Civil Merger and Non-Merger Cases (Multiple Products, Multiple Industries Domestic and International)
  • Civil Rights Actions
  • Competition Advocacy
  • Contempt
  • Contracting Fraud
  • Corporate Defense (Multiple Industries, Domestic and International)
  • Criminal Conspiracies
  • Defamation
  • Disaster Fraud
  • Drug Cartels and Trafficking
  • Embezzlement
  • Employment Law
  • False Claims
  • False Statements
  • Federal Trade Commission Matters
  • Firearms and Weapons Offenses (Domestic and International)
  • Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) (Multiple Industries)
  • Forgery
  • Fuel Theft
  • Grant Fraud (Multiple Industries, Multiple Agencies, Domestic and International)
  • Hart-Scott-Rodino Pre-Merger Notification
  • Health Care Fraud (Compliance, Organizational Defense, Whistleblowers)
  • Kickbacks
  • Identity Theft
  • Intellectual Property
  • Mail Fraud
  • Market Allocation
  • Mergers and Acquisitions
  • Money Laundering (Multiple Industries, Domestic and International)
  • Monopolies (Multiple Industries, Domestic and International)
  • Murder for Hire
  • Non-governmental Organizations (International)
  • Obstruction of Justice
  • Overseas Contingency Operations
  • Perjury
  • Presidential Pardons
  • Price Fixing
  • Procurement Fraud (Multiple Industries, Domestic and International)
  • Professional Malpractice Defense
  • Public Corruption
  • Qui Tam Matters
  • Racketeering
  • Securities Fraud
  • Stark Violations
  • Tax Fraud (International, Domestic and State)
  • Territorial Allocation
  • Webb-Pomerene Organizations (International)
  • Weapons Offenses (Domestic and International)
  • Whistleblowers (Multiple Industries, Domestic and International)
  • Wire Fraud
  • Witness Tampering

Allen Grunes Quoted in Washington Post: “AT&T Bid for Leap Wireless Seen Winning U.S. Regulatory Approval”

Posted on by

Allen Grunes was asked for his views on the proposed merger of AT&T and Leap Wireless International.  (Grunes and Maurice Stucke were the authors of an influential antitrust analysis of the attempted AT&T/T-Mobile merger in 2011.)  Please click on the linked article below:

AT&T Bid for Leap Wireless Seen Winning U.S. Regulatory Approval

 

 

Maurice E. Stucke Curriculum Vitae

Posted on by

Maurice E. Stucke Curriculum Vitae (pdf)

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

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***Antitrust Monitor (Inaugural Issue): 2013 Forecast***

Posted on by

Renewed Vigilance Regarding Civil Enforcement; Continued Consolidation, Integration and Acceptance of Structural Changes at Criminal Program; Higher Morale

Baer’s Confirmation is unlikely to change momentum, policies or priorities.

As the Obama Administration prepares for a second term, Bill Baer has been confirmed as Assistant Attorney General.  The Antitrust Division’s informal profile photo of Baer captures his genuine humility and good will that many Antitrust Division attorneys will immediately recognize from numerous interactions with him when he represented clients as a partner at Arnold & Porter.  Baer’s easygoing nature is no contrivance and he will build on this long track record of good relations with many of the attorneys and mid-level managers at the Antitrust Division.  In addition to the normal productivity enhancements associated with having confirmed leadership at the helm, Baer’s tenure at the FTC suggests that he will implement an effective management style and push more expansive enforcement goals.  We also believe that Baer’s confirmation will improve morale (discussed more fully below) and Baer will quickly calm the ripples caused by programmatic changes that resulted in field office closure and attrition of seasoned prosecutors in the criminal program.

Continued Civil Enforcement Vigilance 

In its first term, the Obama Administration took some modest steps toward its goal of revitalizing civil enforcement.  The Division repudiated the Bush administration’s monopolization guidelines and expressed a greater willingness to challenge unilateral conduct and exclusionary business arrangements, although it only brought one monopolization case.  That the Obama administration managed a slight increase in second requests is significant since it occurred in the midst of significantly dampened merger activity caused by the financial crisis.  Perhaps the most telling metric was discovered by the Stanford Law Review (SLR Online, 65 STAN. L. REV. ONLINE 13, July 18, 2012):

“[t]he Bush Administration conducted 0.04 investigations per Hart-Scott filing; Obama conducted 0.05 investigations per filing. The Bush Administration made 0.013 second requests for information per Hart-Scott filing; Obama’s made 0.020—a 50% increase on a per capita basis.

Combine this 50% increase with a few more high profile enforcement actions that included AT&T/T-Mobile, H&R Block/TaxAct, NASDAQ/NYSE, and BCBS/Physicians Health, and the Obama administration can make a plausible case that it has already reinvigorated enforcement. During his Senate confirmation hearings in July, Baer told lawmakers that he supported Congressional action to repeal the Supreme Court’s Leegin decision which imposed rule of reason analysis for resale price maintenance where per se analysis, albeit with loopholes, had sufficed in the past.

This was music to Democratic ears in the Senate that clearly prefer more aggressive enforcement.  Senator Herb Kohl, D-Wis had expressed concerns back in July regarding Google potentially using its market power in search engine technology to favor its products and services.  Baer did not answer Kohl’s question as to Google, but he did share his enforcement philosophy generally: “being vigilant whether its Microsoft or Alcoa Aluminum about firms that are successful, and we don’t want to penalize success but to make sure it’s not improperly translated into unfair advantage in other markets, is really a key part of what antitrust is all about.”  This comment suggests a revival of monopoly leveraging, always a favorite of Democrat administrations even if the courts have been less receptive.

Will Baer lead the Division on a path to reinvigoration?  He may have provided an answer last week when he came out of the box swinging against the merger between Bazaarvoice and Powerreviews Inc. (involving online customer reviews for retailers) and Oklahoma Chiropractors (which challenged joint contracting agreements with insurers).  Of these first two significant actions of Baer’s tenure, Bazaarvoice is the one that is suggestive of reinvigoration and expansion.  The customer reviews market is evolving at rocket speed, there are challenges for the government regarding market definition and it is unclear that the barriers to entry can be all that high, particularly when well-funded behemoths like Google and Facebook seem to have position for market entry.  Notably, the company was vocal in its frustration about the “six months” it spent in negotiations with the Antitrust Division, suggesting that it could have announced this challenge prior to Baer taking the helm.  The fact that Baer announced it after he assumed his duties suggests that he sees a strong case.   Certainly it would not have escaped Baer’s attention that a decision like this would allow many to interpret this is a bullish signal that Baer plans to reinvigorate, revitalize and expand the Antitrust Division’s mission regarding civil enforcement.

At the FTC, Chairman Leibowitz, a Democrat, has served as an FTC commissioner for eight years and as chairman for almost four years. As rumors circulate regarding his likely departure, President Obama must consider potential replacements. The president could appoint a new chairman from the sitting Democratic commissioners, or he could choose someone from outside the agency. The president recently nominated Joshua Wright, a Republican, to replace outgoing Republican commissioner J. Thomas Rosch, whose term expired in September. Commissioner Rosch has indicated that he will stay in his position until the Senate confirms Wright. Although no more than three of the FTC’s five commissioners, who each serve seven-year terms, can be of the same political party, President Obama’s reelection ensures a Democratic majority at the FTC. Three of the five FTC commissioners will continue to be Democrats, and the chairman, who appoints the directors of the Bureaus of Competition and Consumer Protection, will also be a Democrat.  Accordingly, there is little reason to expect a new direction in antitrust enforcement priorities.

Continued Consolidation and Integration of Structural Changes at Criminal Program 

In the first Obama term, cartel enforcement was the Division’s top criminal priority to the exclusion of things like procurement fraud.  Almost certainly, these headwinds still exist, but time will tell whether Baer can be successful at reducing impediments to opening investigations that do not present themselves on first impression as Section 1 conduct.  Although people can argue over the causes, the Antitrust Division grand jury investigations plummeted from over 150 to fewer than 60 overall and new openings fell from 66 to 29.  Most of this came at the expense of Department’s procurement fraud program and overall anti-competitive deterrence in the area of government procurements has been grievously affected as a result.

On paper, cartel enforcement was little changed from the Bush years, although some of the Division’s numbers were marginally inflated by splitting criminal information’s in non-traditional ways and there is a widespread concern that the pipeline of “small” or “bread and butter” investigations is dry.  Airline Shipping and Auto Parts are behemoth investigations that generate a wealth of statistics, but there are 90 fewer industries that are the subject of grand jury investigations and it is impossible to measure deterrence that is not happening.

In procurement fraud, the Bush administration gave the Antitrust Division a long leash and authorized its use of resources in most allegations that affected the pre-award contract process.  As the Obama Administration strained its resources to support invigorated civil enforcement and it pushed investigative resources toward financial crimes, the administration implemented a series of policy changes that significantly reduced Antitrust Division criminal investigations.  First, it was made much more difficult for attorneys to open grand jury investigations involving matters that did not present themselves on first impression as suspected antitrust conspiracies.  Since very few antitrust criminal cases ever “present” as fully-fledged antitrust conspiracies (i.e.. evident participation by more than one competitor), investigation requests plummeted.  This effect was particularly pronounced in procurement because so few government contracts are awarded through an invitation for bid (”IFB”) process and more are awarded sole source, best value and through a request for proposal procedure where price is not the only factor.  These contracting schemes make it difficult, if not impossible as a matter of law, to use the Sherman Act to prosecute schemes affecting contracts that were not awarded through an IFB process.

Second, the Antitrust Division implemented a new, computerized tracking system that made it harder to keep open investigations that were not being actively investigated.  Because grand jury authority is held at the AAG level in contrast to the Criminal Division (delegated to the DAAG) and the United States Attorneys’ Offices (delegated to line assistants), getting grand jury investigations opened takes the Antitrust Division greater resources than other components.  Line attorneys refer to this process with dread as “the investigation to get grand jury investigative authority.”  Because the Antitrust Division has to invest greater resources into securing grants of grand jury authority and because this authority requires higher levels of approval, it is relatively unusual to reopen a grand jury investigation after closure.  In the past, keeping investigations “on the books” might allow a staff to focus on another industry or to offer help to another investigative staff on an investigation that had “gone hot.”  It also might allow another contract to be awarded or another coordinated price increase to be implemented that might significantly further the investigation.  For these and other reasons, putting open cases on the back burner became verboten and if investigations did not hit success early on they got closed.  The new case matter tracking system often pushes staffs to make tactical decisions that would be better made later after the emergence of new leads, information or evidence.  Ironically, in some respects, the Antitrust Division now pursues an operations policy that reminds line attorneys of some partner investigative agencies who years ago would have to close investigations and then struggle to reopen them if a staff determined that a three month delay was advisable.  Because case filings (i.e. stats) are the paramount metric, this provides disincentives to working any case that is at all considered “marginal” and the Division’s deterrence footprint has shrunk.

Third, by January 30, 2013, the Division will have closed four of its seven field offices, a move that has adversely impacted morale.  Although this was sold as a serious consolidation plan for which many employees would avail themselves and relocate to Washington D.C. or the remaining field offices (San Francisco, New York, and Chicago), this does not seem to be happening in any great numbers.  Using the Philadelphia and Cleveland Field Offices as examples, we count a total of three attorneys who will be staying with the Division.

Baer’s mission is not an easy one.  He joins the Antitrust Division just prior to the formal shut down of four offices and significant attrition; he joins an Antitrust Division that has fewer raw materials in the investigations pipeline.  Still we have caucused Antitrust Division attorneys who are staying with the agency and there is reason for optimism.  As word filters back that Antitrust Division attorneys who severed or retired were dealt with fairly and considerately, active concerns will dissipate and we believe Baer can drive a newly structured criminal program to fire on all cylinders by the end of this fiscal year.   There could be reinvigorated activity as a rumored new section formed in Washington D.C. (staffed by detailees and transferring attorneys) and offices in San Francisco, Chicago (currently slated for one additional expat prosecutor) and New York receive transferring prosecutors and lateral hires to stem attrition, and we expect to see vibrant competition by attorneys for investigations.  Most notably, the rumored new section in Washington D.C., that will be comprised of expats from some of the closed field offices, will see the National Criminal Enforcement Section (NCES) as its main competition and we expect fierce competition to develop creative strategies for generating new cases.