On July 3, 2010, the Justice Yates (the trial judge) overturned his decision after a bench trial convicting William Gilman and Edward McNenny of violating the Donnolly Act (New York’s antitrust statute) for rigging bids on insurance contracts.  According to the New York Times, he did so based on “newly discovered contradictory statements made by witnesses who cooperated with prosecutors, and the suppression of documents that would have been ‘invaluable’ to the defense.”  Gilman and McNenny are the only Marsh executives that were convicted after a trial.  As reported in earlier posts, Marsh paid an $850 million civil penalty and was not prosecuted.  One former Marsh executive pleaded guilty and others had their cases voluntarily dismissed by the government or were acquitted after a bench trial.

On November 19, 2009, the New York Attorney General’s motion to dismiss the charges arising from alleged bid rigging of insurance policies against Thomas T. Green, Jr. and William L. Burnie (former Marsh executives) and Geri Mandel (a former Zurich executive) was granted by Justice James Yates.  New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo sought dismissal in light of the acquittals of Joseph Peiser, Greg Doherty and Kathleen Drake, former Marsh executives, after an 11-month bench trial before Justice Yates, who was to preside at the upcoming trial.  These acquittals were reported in the October 26, 2009 Post.  As you may recall (and discussed in the February 22, 2008 Post), two Marsh executives were convicted of Donnelly Act violations after a 10-month bench trial.  These cases were brought by then New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer.  Marsh paid $850 million to settle and another Marsh executive pleaded guilty.

Joseph Peiser, Greg Doherty and Kathleen Drake, former Marsh executives, were acquitted after an 11-month bench trial before Justice James Yates of violating New York’s antitrust law — the Donnelly Act.  They were acquitted of bid-rigging in connection with the sale of insurance policies.   As you may recall (and discussed in the February 22, 2008 Post), two Marsh executives were convicted of Donnelly Act violations after a 10-month bench trial.  These cases were brought by then New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer.  Marsh paid $850 million to settle and another Marsh executive pleaded guilty.

Levitt & Kaizer, on behalf of the class of indirect purchasers in In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1952 and the individual class representatives, asserted today the class’ rights as victims under the Crime Victims Rights Act (18 U.S.C. 3771) in connection with the criminal prosecution of Arctic Glacier and its former executives.  They requested the opportunity to be heard before the court decides whether to accept any plea agreements.  They also requested that the court postpone the upcoming arraignment of Arctic Glacier on October 27, 2009 and provide them with 30 days’ notice before the Court accepts any plea agreement.  A copy of their letter is available here: CVRA Letter

As previously reported, these defendants entered into plea agreements on October 14, 2009.  In apparent violation of the CVRA, the government entered into the plea agreements without conferring with the indirect purchasers beforehand.  See, e.g., In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 394 (5^th Cir. 2008) (“the government should have fashioned a reasonable way to inform the victims of the likelihood of criminal charges and to ascertain the victims’ views on the possible details of a plea bargain”).  The CVRA provides, inter alia, “[t]he right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding … involving the crime,” “the right to confer with the attorney for the government” and “[t]he right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving … plea [or] sentencing.”  18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2)&(4)&(5).  The CVRA further provides that “the court shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the[se] rights.”  18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)(1). 

Levitt & Kaizer and the Law Offices of Max Wild are interim co-lead counsel for the indirect purchaser class in In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1952.   The Perrin Law Firm is liaison counsel for the indirect purchaser class.

The Antitrust Division’s press release:

"WASHINGTON — A packaged-ice company, headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., has agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $9 million criminal fine for allocating customers, the Department of Justice announced today. In addition, three of the company’s former executives pleaded guilty for their roles in the conspiracy to allocate customers.

According to a one-count felony charge filed under seal on Sept. 10, 2009, and unsealed today in the U.S. District Court in Cincinnati, Arctic Glacier International Inc. engaged in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by allocating packaged-ice customers in the Detroit metropolitan area and southeastern Michigan, beginning Jan. 1, 2001, and continuing until at least July 17, 2007. Under the plea agreement, which must be approved by the court, Arctic Glacier has agreed to cooperate with the Department’s ongoing investigation.

According to separate one-count felony charges, also filed under seal on Sept. 10, 2009, and unsealed today in the U.S. District Court in Cincinnati, Frank Larson, Arctic Glacier’s former senior vice president of operations, and Keith Corbin, the company’s former vice president of sales and marketing, participated in the same conspiracy beginning at least as early as March 1, 2005, and continuing at least until July 17, 2007. According to an additional one-count felony charge filed under seal on Sept. 10, 2009, in the U.S. District Court in Cincinnati and unsealed today, Gary Cooley, the company’s former vice president of sales and marketing, also participated in the conspiracy from at least as early as June 1, 2006, until July 17, 2007. Under the three separate plea agreements, which must be approved by the court, the former executives have agreed to cooperate with the Department’s ongoing investigation.

In court documents, the Department said that the three former executives and Arctic Glacier, conspired with another packaged-ice competitor to allocate packaged-ice customers in southeastern Michigan and the Detroit metropolitan areas. As a part of the conspiracy, Arctic Glacier, its former executives and other co-conspirators exchanged information for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreed customer allocations and refrained from competing for the allocated customers.

Arctic Glacier, Larson, Corbin and Cooley are each charged with allocating packaged-ice customers in violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine for individuals and a $100 million fine for corporations. The maximum fines may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims if either of those amounts is greater than the Sherman Act maximum fines.

These charges stem from an ongoing antitrust investigation into the packaged-ice industry. As a part of the same investigation, Home City Ice Company pleaded guilty on June 17, 2008, for its participation in a conspiracy to allocate customers and territories in the packaged-ice industry."

Levitt & Kaizer and the Law Offices of Max Wild are interim co-lead counsel for the indirect purchaser class in In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1952.   The Perrin Law Firm is liaison counsel for the indirect purchaser class.

In another blow to the Antitrust Division’s criminal section, two scrap metal dealers were acquitted of price-fixing on June 25, 2009.  The jury returned its verdict in less than four hours.  As reported in the November 16 and March 15, 2008 Posts, the Antitrust Division has lost a number of high profile price-fixing trials including in the magazine paper, DRAM and marine hose cartels.  The trials involving the magazine paper and marine hose cartels likewise resulted in quick acquittals with the jury returning not guilty verdicts in both cases in less than two hours.  It should be noted, however, that the class action on behalf of victims of the scrap metal cartel resulted in a $20 million damages verdict, which was affirmed on appeal.  (See May 16, 2008 Post).

On December 2, 2008, three Marsh executives went on trial in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (New York County) on charges of violating the Donnelly Act in connection with bid rigging of insurance policies.  As you may recall (and discussed on the February 22, 2008 Post), two Marsh executives were convicted on Donnelly Act violations after a 10 month trial.  These cases have been brought by the New York Attorney General.  Marsh paid $850 million to settle and another Marsh executive pleaded guilty.

In November 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland sentenced two defense contractors to probation who had pleaded guilty in connection with a conspiracy to steal confidential bidding information from a competitor.  The conspiracy concerned contracts to supply the Department of Defense with jet fuel abroad.  In its press release announcing the guilty pleas (attached Cartwright Press Release), the Antitrust Division’s Criminal Section noted that the defendants pleaded guilty to offenses that had maximum prison sentences of 20 years — conspiracy to commit wire fraud by one defendant and conspiracy to commit wire fraud, defraud the United States and steal trade secrets by the other defendant.  The court rejected the government’s requests for prison time.  It noted that the defendants had otherwise been exemplary businessman and citizens and were pioneers in supplying fuel to newly opened routes in Eastern Europe.  They were responsible for opening aviation from throughout the world in  these far flung areas.  The defendants were represented by Richard Levitt, Esq. of Levitt & Kaizer, Ray Granger, Esq. of Granger & Associates and Gordon Mehler, Esq. of Law Offices of Gordon Mehler.

On November 10, 2008, the DOJ Antitrust Division’s criminal section lost another high profile criminal price fixing trial. This time the individual defendant was acquitted of alleged participation in the highly publicized marine hose cartel that had resulted in numerous guilty pleas.  After a two-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in less than two hours.  Paul Calli, Michael Pasano and Marissel Descalzo of Carlton Fields, P.A. represented the defendant.  (Carlton Fields press release)  The criminal section has lost a number of high profile trials recently — DRAM (hung jury; decision not to re-prosecute) and magazine paper.

On July 25, 2008, the D.C. Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of the government that denied appellant’s Freedom of Information Act request. Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group Ltd. v. United States, Nos. 07-5191, 07-5192 2008 WL 2853214 (D.C. Cir. July 25, 2008) (attached Stolt v. U.S.). The appellant (Stolt-Nielsen) had sought the Antitrust Division’s amnesty agreements with other recipients that were based on the model that the Antitrust Division used in the early days of the program. Stolt limited its request to allow for redaction of the names of companies and individuals from the request. The amnesty program allows the first company or individual that self-reports an antitrust violation to receive immunity from prosecution except in extraordinary circumstances. Congress also has enacted legislation that reduces an amnesty recipient’s exposure from treble to single damages in private antitrust litigation. Thus, amnesty can be invaluable to a company that learns of criminal antitrust misconduct of its officers. The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court that held that the information sought by Stolt was not reasonably segregable because the district court did not make any findings to support its decision. The D.C. Circuit remanded the case for the district court to make findings consistent with its opinion. As you may recall, Stolt had been in litigation over enforcement of its amnesty agreement ultimately prevailing at trial. The Antitrust Division revoked the agreement claiming that Stolt breached it by continuing to violate the antitrust laws after entering into the agreement. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania disagreed and dismissed the indictment. (See Mach 15, 2008 Post, “DOJ’s Antitrust Division (Criminal Section) Suffers Four Major Losses Within the Last Year.”