Applied Antitrust Law

Dale Collins
NYU School of Law
Georgetown University Law Center

NB: "±" indicates that the hyperlink will take you to another site.

 

Home page
Topical index
Case studies index

2. Early Foundations

 

4. Private cause of action

 

 

3. Criminal Price-Fixing Investigations and Prosecutions

 

Reading and class notes
Statutes and institutions
Significant precedents
The Indianapolis Ready-Mix Concrete Criminal Investigation and Prosecution
Reference materials
Case studies

 

Primary Materials

Supplemental Materials

Reading and Class Notes

Reading and class notes

Unit 3 reading

Unit 3 class notes

± United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2016)

Charles Doyle, Cong. Res. Serv., Corporate Criminal Liability: An Overview of Federal Law (Oct. 30, 2013)

Statutes and Institutions

Statutes

Selected antitrust and related statutes: Substantive offenses

Sherman Act

Sherman Act § 1, 15 U.S.C. § 1
(agreements in restraint of trade)

Sherman Act § 2, 15 U.S.C. § 2
(monopolization, attempted monopolization, conspiracy to monopolize)

Criminal Code

Principals (aid and abet liability), 18 U.S.C. § 2.

Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371

Making false statements, 18 U.S.C. § 1001

Frauds and swindles (mail fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 1341

Fraud by wire, radio, or television (wire fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 1343

Obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1503

Obstruction of proceedings, 18 U.S.C. § 1505

Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, 18 U.S.C. § 1512

Destruction of documents, 18 U.S.C. § 1519

Perjury, 18 U.S.C. § 1621

Subornation of perjury, 18 U.S.C. § 1622

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., An Antitrust Primer for Federal Law Enforcement Personnel (rev. 04/2005)

U.S. Code (including notes)

Sherman Act § 1, 15 U.S.C. § 1
Sherman Act § 2, 15 U.S.C. § 2
Making false statements, 18 U.S.C. § 1001
Obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1503
Obstruction of proceedings, 18 U.S.C. § 1505
Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, 18 U.S.C. § 1512
Destruction of documents, 18 U.S.C. § 1519
Perjury, 18 U.S.C. § 1621
Subornation of perjury, 18 U.S.C. § 1622

 

 

--Application of obstruction statutes
 

Superceding Indictment, United States v. Martha Stewart, No. 03 CR 717 (S.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 4, 2004) (original indictment filed June 4, 2003)

Docket sheet (downloaded Nov. 23, 2016)

United States v. Martha Stewart, 323 F. Supp. 2d 606 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (denying motions for a new trial) (also containing an appendix with the jury verdict form).

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, News Release (Mar. 4, 2005) (regarding Stewart's release from prison)

United States v. Martha Stewart, 433 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006) (affirming convictions)

Superceding Indictment, United States v. Larry F. Stewart, No. 03 Cr. 717 (S.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 5, 2004) (original indictment filed June 9, 2003)

Information, United States v. Groen, No. 1:16-cr-00683-KBF (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 14, 2016)

Indictment, United States v. Higashida, No.2:16-cr-20641-GAD-APP (E.D. Mich. filed Sept. 9, 2016)

Docket sheet (downloaded Dec. 29, 2016)

Arrest Warrant (executed Sept. 23, 2016; filed Oct. 6, 2016)

Order Setting Conditions of Release (Sept. 23, 2016)

Appearance Bond (Sept. 23, 2016)

Amended Appearance Bond (Oct. 4, 2016)

Stipulation and Proposed Order Continuing Trial Date and Excluding Time nder the Speedy Trial Act (Nov. 1, 2016)

The U.S. Judicial System
 

Federal Judicial Center, The Federal Courts and What They Do

Administrative Office of the United States Courts, The Federal Court System in the United States

Administrative Office of the United States Courts, A Journalist's Guide to the Federal Courts (2011)

Federal Public Defender, W.D. Mich., The Federal Criminal Process

± Federal Defenders of New York, What Happens in a Federal Criminal Case

Office of the U.S. Attorneys, Steps in the Federal Criminal Process

± A Federal Criminal Case Timeline

± The Life of a Federal Case

± U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Grand Jury Manual

± Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Model Grand Jury Charge

Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Geographic Boundaries of the United States Courts of Appeal and United States District Courts

Significant Precedents

Requirement of criminal intent
 

United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 11 U.S. 32 (1812)

United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 (1978) (± Oyez)

Individual membership in conspiracy
 

United States v. Wise, 370 U.S. 405 (1962) (± Oyez)

Sentencing Guidelines
 

Southern Union Co. v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2344 (2012) (± Oyez)

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (± Oyez)

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (± Oyez)

Criminal statute of limitations
 

United States v. Kissel, 218 U.S. 601 (1910) (conspiracies are "continuing offenses")

The Indianapolis Ready-Mix Concrete Criminal Investigation

Review

United States v. Beaver, No. 07-1381 (7th Cir. Feb. 4, 2008) (affirming conviction) (reported at 515 F.3d 730)

Frank J. Vondrak, Ass't Chief, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div. Chicago Field Office, Case Study: Ready Mixed Concrete (undated).

Scott D. Hammond, Dep. Ass't Att'y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Detroit presentation (Feb. 15, 2013)

Elements of a criminal price-fixing violation

± Sherman Act § 1, 15 U.S.C. § 1

Additional requirement of criminal intent:

United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 11 U.S. 32 (1812)

United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 (1978) (± Oyez)

United States v. Cinemette Corp. of Am., 687 F. Supp. 976 (W.D. Pa. 1988)

Criminal antitrust penalties

± Sherman Act § 1, 15 U.S.C. § 1

± Sherman Act § 2, 15 U.S.C. § 2

± 18 U.S.C. § 3571 (sentence of fine, especially alternative fine provision in subsection d)

± U.S. Dept. of Justice, Antitrust Div., Sherman Act Violations Yielding a Corporate Fine of $10 Million or More

Southern Union Co. v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2344 (2012) (± Oyez)

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)

See Order Denying United States's Motion for Order Regarding Fact Finding for Sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d), United States v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 3:09-CR-00110 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2011) (applying Apprendi and requiring DOJ to prove sentencing facts under 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d) to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt)

± Sherman Act § 6, 15 U.S.C. § 6 (forfeiture of property in transit)

± Free Exchange: Fine and Punishment: The Economics of Crime Suggests that Corporate Fines Should Be Even Higher, The Economist, June 21, 2012.

± Scott D. Hammond, Dep. Ass't Att'y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Statement on Behalf of the United States Department of Justice, Before the Antitrust Modernization Commission Hearings on Criminal Remedies (Nov. 3, 2005)

Criminal subject matter jurisdiction

± 18 U.S.C. § 3231

 
Criminal statute of limitations

± 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a)
(general federal criminal statute of limitations)

United States v. Kissel, 218 U.S. 601 (1910)

DOJ prosecutorial policy


Bill Baer, Ass't Att'y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Statement, Hearing on Oversight of the Enforcement of the Antitrust Laws Before the Subcomm. on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights of S. Comm. on the Judiciary (Mar. 9, 2016)

Sally Quillian Yates, Dep. Att'y Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Memorandum re Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing (Sept. 9, 2015) ("Yates memo")Kayaba

Bill Baer, Ass't Att'y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Prosecuting Antitrust Crimes, Remarks as Prepared for the Georgetown University Law Center Global Antitrust Enforcement Symposium (Sept. 10, 2014)

R. Hewitt Pate, Ass't Att'y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Vigorous and Principled Antitrust Enforcement: Priorities and Goals, Address Before the Antitrust Section of the ABA Annual Meeting (Aug. 12, 2003), at 6 (for types antitrust conduct prosecuted criminally).

± U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Antitrust Division Manual Ch.3 C.1 (5th ed. updated Apr. 2015) (providing nonbinding guidance of situations where nominally "hard core" per se cases should not be prosecuted criminally).

See also ± Gregory J. Werden, Scott D. Hammond & Belinda A. Barnett, U.S. Dep't of Justice Antitrust Div., Deterrence and Detection of Cartels: Using All the Tools and Sanctions, Paper Prepared for the 26th Annual National Institute on White Collar Crime, Miami, Florida (Mar. 1, 2012), final version at 56 Antitrust Bull. 207 (2011).

± Robert H. Lande & Joshua P. Davis, The Extraordinary Deterrence of Private Antitrust Enforcement: A Reply to Werden, Hammond & Barnett (Aug. 6, 2012).

± Scott D. Hammond, Dep. Ass't Att'y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice,The Evolution of Criminal Antitrust Enforcement over the Last Two Decades, Remarks Before the ABA Criminal Justice Section 24th Annual National Institute on White Collar Crime, Miami, Florida (Feb. 25, 2010)

± Scott D. Hammond, Dep. Ass't Att'y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice,Ten Strategies for Winning the Fight Against Hardcore Cartels, PowerPoint presentation to the OECD Competition Committee Working Party No. 3 Prosecutors Program, Paris, France ( Oct. 18, 2005)

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Price Fixing, Bid Rigging, and Market Allocation Schemes: What They Are and What to Look For (rev. Sep't 28, 2005)

± DOJ criminal antitrust enforcement page

± DOJ case filing web page

Criminal prosecution process

± United States Attorney's Office, District of Minnesota, Federal Criminal Prosecution (short brochure explaining the criminal prosecution process)

± U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Workload Statistics FY 2006 - 2015

Criminal investigation procedural protections
   
DOJ investigations—FBI involvement and search warrants

± Model Request for FBI Assistance

± Fed. R. Crim. P. 41
(search and seizure)

NB: Pay particular attention to:
Rule 41(d)(1) (obtaining a warrant)
Rule 41(e)(2) (contents of the warrant)
Rule 41(f)(1) (executing and returning the warrant for searching a person or property)
Rule 41(g) (motion to return property)
Rule 41(h) (motion to suppress)
Skim the rest

Application for a Search Warrant (Form AO 106)

Search and Seizure Warrant form (Form AO 93)

Affidavit of FBI Special Agent Steven L. Schlobohm in Support of Application for Search Warrant

In re North Plastics, Inc., 940 F. Supp. 229 (D. Minn.1996) (on the right of a person whose property is seized pursuant to a search warrant to examine the affidavit upon which the warrant was issued)

DOJ investigations—Grand jury investigation

± U.S. Const. amend. V

± Fed. R. Crim. P. 6
(the grand jury)

NB: Pay particular attention to:
Rule 6(a) (composition of a grand jury)
Rule 6(d) (who may be present)
Rule 6(e)(2) (secrecy)
Rule 6(g) (term of a regular grand jury)
Skim the rest

Grand Jury request form (USAM 9-11.260)

± Fed. R. Crim. P. 17
(subpoena)

Form of Subpoena to Testify Before a Grand Jury (Form AO 110)

Form of Warrant for the Arrest of a Witness in a Grand Jury Proceeding (Under Seal) (Form AO 444)

Introduction to the federal grand jury

± Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Handbook for Federal Grand Jurors

± Northern District of Illinois, Grand Jury Foreperson's Handbook

± The People's Panel (introductory film shown to federal grand jurors)

Charles Doyle, The Federal Grand Jury (Congressional Research Service rev. Jan. 22, 2008)

± Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Model Grand Jury Charge

Antitrust grand jury investigations

± U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Grand Jury Manual

ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Handbook on Antitrust Grand Jury Investigations (3d ed. 2002)

Materials in the Beaver case

DOJ/FBI interview record of Virgil Carl Mabrey (Carmel) (May 27, 2004)

DOJ/FBI interview record of Scott Hughey (Aug. 19, 2004)

DOJ/FBI interview record of Pete Irving (Sept. 16, 2004)

DOJ/FBI interview record of John Huggins (Sept. 16, 2004)

DOJ/FBI interview record of Dan Butler (IMI VP) (Oct. 18, 2004)

DOJ/FBI interview record of Price Irving (Oct. 19, 2004)

DOJ/FBI interview record of John Huggins (Jan. 4, 2005)

DOJ/FBI interview record of Dan Butler (IMI VP) (Aug. 17, 2005)

DOJ/FBI interview record of Jason Mann (American Concrete) (Aug. 1, 2006)

Indictments and informations

± Fed. R. Crim. P. 7
(indictment and information)

± U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Antitrust Division Manual Ch. 4 F.1-2 (5th ed. updated Mar. 2014) (drafting and returning the indictment)

± U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Antitrust Division Grand Jury Practice Manual Ch. VII (indictment and information)

Order on Miscellaneous Pretrial Motions, United States v. Eagle Eyes Traffic Industrial Co., No. CR 11-00488 RS (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2012) (denying defendants’ motions to dismiss and for a bill of particulars)

Docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 9, 2012)

Superseding Indictment (Nov. 30, 2011)

Notice of Motion and Motion by Defendants Eagle Eyes and E-Lite to Dismiss Indictment for Failure to Allege Essential Element of Charged Crime (Feb. 7, 2012)

United States’ Opposition to Motion by Defendants Eagle Eyes and E-Lite to Dismiss Indictment for Failure to Allege Essential Element of Charged Crime (Feb. 21, 2012) (Exhibit A) (Exhibit B)

Addendum to United States’ Opposition to Motion by Defendants Eagle Eyes and E-Lite to Dismiss Indictment for Failure to Allege Essential Element of Charged Crime (Feb 24, 2012)

Reply Brief in Support of Motion by Defendants Eagle Eyes and Elite to Dismiss Indictment for Failure to Allege Essential Element of Charged Crime (Feb. 28, 2012)

Notice of Motion and Motion of Defendants for Bill of Particulars; Declaration of Kenneth B. Julian in Support Thereof (Feb. 7, 2012)

Notice of Defendant Homy Hsu’s Joinder in Defendants Eagle Eyes and E-Lite’s Motion for Bill of Particulars (Feb. 7, 2012)

United States' Opposition to (1) Eagle Eyes and E-Lite's Motion for Bill of Particulars and (2) Homy Hsu's Joinder (Feb. 21, 2012) (declaration)

Reply by Defendants Eagle Eyes and E-Lite to Government’s Opposition to Motion for Bill of Particulars; Declaration of Matthew D. Williamson In Support Thereof (Feb. 28, 2012)

± DOJ web site

Criminal complaints

± Fed. R. Crim. P. 3
(criminal complaint)

± Fed. R. Crim. P. 4
(arrest warrant or summons on a complaint)

Criminal Complaint, United States v. Homy Hong-Ming Hsu, No. 3:11-cr-70758 (N.D. Cal. filed July 12, 2011) (part of the aftermarket automobile lights investigation)

Docket sheet (downloaded Oct. 16, 2012)
Arrest Warrant (July 14, 2011)
DOJ web page

Case merged with United States v. Homy Hong-Ming Hsu, No. 3:11-cr-00488-RS-1 (N.D. Cal.), on July 19, 2011

Docket sheet (downloaded Oct. 16, 2012)

Indictment (July 19, 2011) (DOJ press release)

Motion To Establish Procedure For Crime Victim Notification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (July 21, 2011) (proposed order) (order)

Order Setting Conditions of Release, Pending Further Hearing Currently Set For August 18, 2011 (Aug. 12, 2011)

Minute order (Aug. 18, 2011) (setting bond at $1 million)

Order re Anticipated Release of Defendant (August 18, 2011)

United States' and Defendant Homy Hongming Hsu's Joint Request to Exclude Time from August 23, 2011 to March 5, 2012 (Aug. 23, 2011)

Order (Aug. 23, 2011)

Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174 (requiring, among other things, that a criminal defendant’s trial to commence within 70 days of his indictment or initial appearance)

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Modifying Conditions of Pretrial Release (Oct. 18, 2011)

Order (Oct. 18, 2011)

Superseding Indictment (Nov. 30, 2011) (DOJ press release)

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Modifying Conditions of Pretrial Release (Nov. 30, 2011)

Order (Dec. 1, 2011)

Minute entry re initial appearance and plea of not guilty (Dec. 20, 2011)

Joint Request to Exclude Time from December 20, 2011 To June 18, 2012 (Dec. 23, 2011)

Order (Dec. 27, 2011)

Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Indictment or, in the Alternative, for Ruling as a Matter of Law re: Rule of Reason (Sept. 11, 2012)

Plea Agreement (Sept. 26, 2012) (as to Homy Hong-Ming Hsu—not publicly available)

DOJ leniency policy

DOJ Corporate Leniency Policy (Aug. 10, 1993)

DOJ Individual Leniency Policy (Aug. 10, 1994)

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Antitrust Division's Leniency Program and Model Leniency Letters (Jan. 26, 2017)

Prior version: Scott C. Hammond & Belinda A. Barnett, Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Antitrust Division's Leniency Program and Model Leniency Letters (Nov. 19, 2008)

Antitrust Division Leniency web page

Model Corporate Conditional Leniency Letter (Jan. 26, 2017)

Prior verions: Model Corporate Conditional Leniency Letter (Nov. 19, 2008)

Model Individual Conditional Leniency Letter (Jan. 26, 2017)

Prior version: Model Individual Conditional Leniency Letter (Nov. 19, 2008)

Model Dual Investigations Leniency Letter (Jan. 26, 2017 (used when the corporate leniency applicant is a subject, target, or defendant in another Antitrust Division investigation)

Model Dual Investigations Acknowledgement Letter for Employees (Nov. 19, 2008)

 

Scott Hammond, Dep. Ass't Att'y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, The Role Of Markers In Leniency Programs (Oct. 16, 2012)

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Press Release, Bank of America Agrees to Pay $137.3 Million in Restitution to Federal and State Agencies as a Condition of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Corporate Leniency Program (Dec. 7, 2010)

Bank of America settlement agreement with 20 states (Dec. 7, 2010)

Scott D. Hammond, Dep. Ass't Att'y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Recent Developments Relating to the Antitrust Division's Corporate Leniency Program, Prepared Remarks Before the ABA Criminal Justice Section National Institute on White Collar Crime, San Francisco, CA (Mar. 5, 2009)

± Bruce A. Baird, Derek Ludwin & Monique M. Mendez, Reexamining the Market-Based Approach to Criminal Antitrust Enforcement Against Individuals, Antitrust, Summer 2009, at 92

Memorandum Opinion, In re Micron Secs. Litig., No. 09-mc-00609 (GK) (D.D.C. filed Feb. 1, 2010) (denying plaintiff's motion to compel the DOJ to produce all records of interviews of Micron employees in connection with the DOJ’s antitrust investigation and leniency program) (reported at 264 F.R.D. 7)

Order Granting Samsung's Administrative Motion to File Leniency Agreement under Seal for in Camera Review, In re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1819 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2011) (granting Samsung's motion to exclude at trial any evidence of or reference to the leniency agreement)

Plea agreements
 

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Grand Jury Manual ch. IX (Nov. 1991) (plea agreements)

Scott D. Hammond, Dep. Ass't Att'y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, The U.S. Model of Negotiated Plea Agreements: A Good Deal With Benefits For All, Prepared for the OECD Competition Committee Working Party No. 3, Paris (Oct. 17, 2006)

Scott D. Hammond, Dep. Ass't Att'y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Measuring the Value of Second-In Cooperation in Corporate Plea Negotiations, Prepared Remarks Before the 54th Annual American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law Spring Meeting, Washington, D.C. (Mar. 29, 2006)

Shelby Materials
(1st in to admit guilt and cooperate)

Shelby Conditional Amnesty Agreement (June 16, 2004) (not prosecuted)

 
Irving Materials Inc. (IMI)
(2d in to admit guilt and cooperate)

Irving Materials Conditional Amnesty Agreement (May 26, 2005)

 

DOJ case filing web site

See Information, United States v. Lee, No. IP 05 - 63- CR-01M/ F (S.D. Ind. filed Apr. 28, 2005)

Plea agreement (Apr. 28, 2005)
Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 3, 2014)
DOJ news release (Apr. 28, 2005)

Indictment, United States v. Lee's Ready Mix & Trucking, Inc., No. IP 05 -77- CR-01M/F (S.D. Ind. May 18, 2005)

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 3, 2014)
DOJ news release (May 19, 2005)

Pleaded guilty on July 22, 2005. Sentenced to $500K fine, probation of 5 years, and an assessment of $400.

ACPERA

Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-237, tit. II, 118 Stat. 661, 665 (codified as as amended in 15 U.S.C.A. § 1 note)

Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-237, tit. II, 118 Stat. 661, 665 (codified as 15 U.S.C.A. § 1 note) (ACPERA) (± legislative background)

149 Cong. Rec. S23520 (Oct. 29, 2003) (statement of Sen. Kohl) (introducing bill).

150 Cong. Rec. S3614 (Apr. 2, 2004) (statement of Sen. Hatch) (noting, among other things, that the remaining defendants are jointly and severally responsible for three times the actual conspiratorial damages, including the nonrecovered portion of the treble damages attributable to the conduct of the amnesty-applicant).

± Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 Extension Act, Pub. L. 111-30, 123 Stat. 1775 (2009) (extending ACPERA's five-year sunset provision by one year to June 23, 2010)

Pub. L. No. 111-190, 124 Stat. 1275 (June 9, 2010) (extending ACPERA's sunset provision to June 23, 2020 and making various other changes)

U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, Criminal Cartel Enforcement: Stakeholder Views on Impact of 2004 Antitrust Reform Are Mixed, but Support Whistleblower Protection (July 2011)

± Michael D. Hausfeld, Michael P. Lehmann & Megan E. Jones, Observations from the Field: ACPERA's First Five Years, 10 Sedona Conf. J. 95 (2009)

 

Irving Materials Plea Agreement (June 29, 2005) (corporate plea agreement)

Fred R. "Pete" Irving Plea Agreement (June 29, 2005) (individual plea agreement)

± Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (pleas)

Selected statues referenced in the IMI plea agreement:

± 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (review of a sentence)

± 18 U.S.C. § 3663 (order of restitution)

± 18 U.S.C. § 3013 (special assessment on convicted persons)

± 18 U.S.C. § 3561 (sentence of probation)

± 18 U.S.C. § 3612 (collection of unpaid fine or restitution)

± 18 U.S.C. § 3572 (imposition of a sentence of fine and related matters)

± 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (imposition of a sentence)

± 18 U.S.C. § 3571 (sentence of fine)

Other IMI-related plea agreements:

Price Irving Plea Agreement (June 29, 2005) (individual plea agreement)

Butler Plea Agreement (June 29, 2005) (individual plea agreement)

John Huggins Plea Agreement (June 29, 2005) (individual plea agreement)

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release, Indiana Ready Mixed Concrete Producer and Four Executives Agree to Plead Guilty to Price-Fixing Charge (June 29, 2005)

DOJ materials:

DOJ Model Annotated Corporate Plea Agreement (rev. Dec. 20, 2013)

DOJ Model Annotated Individual Plea Agreement (rev. Dec. 20, 2013)

± Scott D. Hammond, Dep. Ass't Att'y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, The U.S. Model of Negotiated Plea Agreements: A Good Deal With Benefits For All, Remarks Before the OECD Competition Committee, Working Party No. 3, Paris (Oct. 17, 2006)

 

Information, United States v. Irving Materials, Inc., Cause No. IP 05- 94 -CR-01 M/F (S.D. Ind. filed June 29, 2005) (against Irving Materials, Inc., Daniel C. Butler, John Huggins, Fred R. "Pete" Irving, and Price Irving)

 
Builder's Concrete
(3d in to admit guilt and cooperate)
 

Information (Mar. 30, 2006) (against Builder's Concrete & Supply Co., Inc. and Gus B. Nuckols III, a/k/a Butch Nuckols)

Builder's Concrete Plea Agreement (Mar. 30, 2006)

Butch Nuckols Plea Agreement (Mar. 30, 2006)

Transcript of proceedings from the Builder's guilty plea hearing (Mar. 31, 2006)

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release, Indiana Ready Mixed Concrete Producer and President Agree to Plead Guilty to Price-Fixing Charge (Mar. 30, 2006)

DOJ case filing web site

Hughey, Inc.
d/b/a Carmel Concrete Products
(4th in to admit guilt and cooperate)
 

Information (Apr. 27, 2006)

Plea Agreement (Hughey, Inc. d/b/a Carmel Concrete Products) (Apr. 27, 2006)

Plea Agreement (Scott Hughey) (Apr. 27, 2006)

Sentencing Memorandum (Aug. 9, 2006)

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release, Indiana Ready Mixed Concrete Producer and President Agree To Plead Guilty To Price-Fixing Charge (Apr. 27, 2006)

DOJ case filing web site

Sentencing

± 18 U.S.C. § 3553
(imposition of a sentence)

± U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Antitrust Division Manual Ch.4 F.6 (5th ed. updated Mar. 2014) (sentencing recommendations)

± Robert Connolly, Brian Boyle & Mark Kasten, A Peek behind the Record
Frank Peake Jail Sentence
(Dec. 20, 2013)

Sentencing memoranda
   
—Corporations

United States Sentencing Memorandum and Motion for a Downward Departure Pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines § 8C4.1, United States v. Kayaba Industry Co., No. 1:15-cr-00098 (S.D. Ohio filed Oct. 5, 2015)

Judgment in a Criminal Case (Nov. 2, 2015)

Indictment, United States v. Kayaba Industry Co., No. 1:15-cr-00098 (S.D. Ohio filed Sept. 16, 2015)

Docket sheet (downloaded June 2, 2016)

Plea Agreement (Sept. 16, 2015)

Transcript of plea hearing (Oct. 29, 2015)

Criminal minutes of plea hearing (Oct. 29, 2015)

Satisfaction of Criminal Judgment (Dec. 17, 2015)

± DOJ web page

 

United States’ Sentencing Memorandum, United States v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 3:09-CR-00110 (N.D. Cal. filed Sept. 11, 2012)

 

Superseding Indictment, United States v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 3:09-CR-00110 (N.D. Cal. filed June 10, 2010)

Exhibits to U.S. Sentencing Memorandum

Declaration of Dr. Keith Leffler Regarding AUO’S U.S. Volume of Commerce for Sentencing Hearing (Sept. 11, 2012) (Exhibits A, B,C and D)

Declaration of Heather S. Tewksbury in Support of United States’ Sentencing Memorandum (Sept. 11, 2012)

AUO response

Expert Declaration of Robert Hall, Ph.D.: AUO- and AUOA-Specific Estimates of Consumer Harm on Behalf of AU Optronics (AUO) and AU Optronics America (AUOA)

Transcript of Proceeding (Sept. 20, 2012)

For more materials on sentencing in the AUO case, see here.

 

United States’ Sentencing Memorandum, United States v. Hitachi Automotive Sys., Ltd., No. 1:16-cr-00078-MRB (S.D. Ohio filed Feb. 6, 2017)

Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum, United States v. Hitachi Automotive Sys., Ltd., No. 1:16-cr-00078-MRB (S.D. Ohio filed Feb. 7, 2017)

Information, United States v. Hitachi Automotive Sys., Ltd., No. 1:16-cr-00078-MRB (S.D. Ohio filed Aug. 9, 2016)

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 16, 2017)

Plea Agreement (Aug. 9, 2016) (fuiled under seal)

Plea Hearing Transcript (Sept. 29, 2016)

Criminal Sentencing Minutes (Feb. 16, 2017)

± DOJ web page

 

 

Joint Sentencing Memorandum, United States v. Samsung Elec. Co., No. CR 05-0643 (PJH) (N.D. Cal. filed Nov. 23, 2005)

Judgment in a Criminal Case, United States v. Samsung Elec. Co., No. CR 05-0643 (PJH) (Nov. 30, 2005)

 

Information (Oct. 13, 2005) (DOJ news release)

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 1, 2012) (case terminated Nov. 30, 2005)

Plea Agreement (Nov. 30, 2005)

Stipulation and Order for Expedited Sentencing under L.R. 32-1(B) (Nov. 30, 2005)

± DOJ case filing web page

 

 

 

—Individuals

United States’ Sentencing Memorandum, United States v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 3:09-CR-00110 (N.D. Cal. filed Sept. 11, 2012)

Defendant Hui Hsiung’s Sentencing Memorandum (Sept. 11, 2012)

United States’ Reply to Defendants’ Sentencing Memoranda (Sept. 17, 2012)

Judgment in a Criminal Case (Oct. 2, 2012)

Transcript of Proceeding (Sept. 20, 2012)

For more materials on sentencing in the AUO case, see here.

 

 

 

Joint Sentencing Memorandum, United States v. Il Ung Kim, No. CR 06-692 (PJH) (N.D. Cal. filed May 1, 2007)

Docket sheet (downloaded Jan. 30, 2010) (case terminated May 2, 2007)

Indictment (Oct. 18, 2006) (DOJ news release)

Plea Agreement (May 2, 2007) (DOJ news release)

Judgment in a Criminal Case, United States v. Il Ung Kim, No. CR 06-692 (PJH) (PJH) (N.D. Cal. filed May 3, 2007)

± DOJ case filing web page

Sentencing Guidelines

Antitrust-specific:

U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2R1.1 (rev. Nov. 1, 2015) (Antitrust Offenses)

 

For organizations:

U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 8C (rev. Nov. 1, 2015) (Fines)

U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 8C4.1 (rev. Nov. 1, 2015) (Substantial Assistance to Authorities - Organizations (Policy Statement))

 

For individuals:

U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1 (rev. Nov. 1, 2015) (Aggravating Role)

U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2 (rev. Nov. 1, 2015) (Mitigating Role)

U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.1 (rev. Nov. 1, 2015) (Criminal History)

U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Chapter 5 pt. A (rev. Nov. 1, 2015) (Sentencing Table)

U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Chapter 5 pt. B (rev. Nov. 1, 2015) (Probation)

U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C (rev. Nov. 1, 2015) (Supervised Release)

U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5D (rev. Nov. 1, 2015) (Supervised Release)

U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5E (rev. Nov. 1, 2015) (Restitution, Fines, Assessments, Forfeitures)

U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1 (rev. Nov. 1, 2015) (Substantial Assistance to Authorities - Individuals (Policy Statement))

For organizations:

U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 8B1.1 (rev. Nov. 1, 2015) (Remedying Harm from Criminal Conduct)

U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 8B2 (rev. Nov. 1, 2015) (Effective Compliance and Ethics Program)

U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 8D (rev. Nov. 1, 2015) (Organizational Probation)

See 18 U.S.C. § 3561 (Sentence of probation); § 3565 (revocation of probation)

See U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, Office of Gen. Counsel, Chapter Eight Fine Primer: Determining the Appropriate Fine Under the Organizational Guidelines (Mar. 2013)

 

For individuals:

U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Chapter 3 (rev. Nov. 1, 2015) (Adjustments)

 

Generally:

± U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (rev. Nov. 1, 2015) (complete)

± U.S. Sentencing Commission home page

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release, Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, R. Hewitt Pate, Issues Statement on Enactment of Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 (June 23, 2004)

± Charles Tetzlaff, Gen. Counsel, U.S. Sentencing Comm'n., Written Statement of the United States Sentencing Commission Before the Antitrust Modernization Commission (Nov. 3, 2005).

Commentary:

± Frederick Thide, Judicial Policy Nullification of the Antitrust Sentencing Guideline, 523 B.C. L. Rev. 861 (2012).

 

See U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, Proposed Priorities for Amendment Cycle, 79 Fed. Reg. 31409 (July 2, 2014) (identifying as a priority a study of antitrust offenses, including examination of the fine provisions in § 2R1.1 (Bid-Rigging, Price-Fixing or Market Allocation Agreements Among
Competitors))

Selected public comments

Anerican Antitrust Institute (July 28, 2014)
Judge Douglas H. Ginsberg and Commissioner Joshua D. Wright (July 28, 2014)

U.S. Dep't of Justice (July 29, 2014) (esp. pp. 24-25)

ABA Section of Antitrust Law (July 27, 2015)

± USSC web page

 

Strongly recommended but not required:

Memorandum Opinion and Order, United States v. Vandebrake, No. 5:10-cr-04025-MWB (N.D. Iowa Feb. 8, 2011) (rejecting recommended sentence of 19 months imprisonment and a $100,000 criminal fine under a plea agreement and, finding antitrust violations similar to fraud and theft, sentencing individual defendant above the guidelines range to 48 months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release and 500 hours of community service and to a fine of $829,715.85 (representing 15% of the volume of commerce affected by him))

 

 

Docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 10, 2012)
(terminated Feb. 2, 2010)

Information (Apr. 26, 2010)

Transcript of Plea Taking (May 4, 2010)

Rule 11(c)(1)(C) Report and Recommendation Concerning Pleas of Guilty (May 4, 2010)

Order Regarding Defendant’s Rule 11(c)(1)(C) Plea Agreement (May 20, 2010) (declining to be bound by recommended sentence in plea agreement)

Transcript of Status Conference (May 26, 2010)

Order Regarding Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation Concerning Defendant’s Guilty Plea (May 26, 2010)

Plea Agreement (May 27, 2010) (resubmitted as a Rule 11(c)(1)(B) plea agreement)

Consolidated Sentencing Memorandum and Response to Defendant Kent Robert Stewart’s “Motion For Departure” (Nov. 24, 2010) (by the United States)

Sentencing Memorandum (Nov. 24, 2010) (by Vandebrake)

Supplemental Sentencing Memorandum (Nov. 29, 2010) (by Vandebrake)

Memorandum Opinion and Order (Feb. 8, 2011)

The opinion also addresses the sentencing of coconspirator Kent Stewart

Judgment in a Criminal Case (Feb. 2, 2011)

 

Judgment in a Criminal Case, United States v. Ghio, No. 2:10CR00144-001 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2016)

Information, United States v. Ghio, No. 2:10CR00144-001 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2010) (DOJ news release)

Docket sheet (downloaded Jan. 6, 2017)

Plea and Cooperation Agreement (Apr. 19, 2010)

[The court entered multiple stays of sentencing while defendant was cooperating with the DOJ in the investigtion and prosecution of various coconspirators]

Presentencing Report (Aug. 22, 2016) (under seal)

United States’ Response to the PSR (Aug. 29, 2016)

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum and Motion for Downward Departure Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 (Sept. 6, 2016)

Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum (Sept. 6, 2016)

Sentencing Minutes (Sept. 12, 2016)

Transcript of Sentencing Hearing (Sept. 12, 2016) [not yet released]

Stipulated Statement of Restitution (Sept. 19, 2016)

 

United States v. Vandebrake, No. 11-1390 (8th Cir. Apr. 27, 2012) (affirming the trial court's sentence)

Judgment (Apr. 27, 2012)

Appeal:

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 5, 2013) (± DOJ web site)

Appellant’s Brief (May 13, 2011)

Appellant's Addendum (May 13, 2011)

Corrected Brief for Appellee United States of America (July 8, 2011)

Appellant' s Reply Brief (July 25, 2011)

Motion to Enforce the Plea Agreement (July 22, 2011)

Government’s Response to Appellant’s Motion to Enforce the Plea Agreement (Aug. 1, 2012)

Order (Aug. 2, 2012) (consolidating motion with appeal)

Oral argument (Nov. 17, 2011)

Judgment (Apr. 27, 2012)

Petition for Rehearing En Banc:

Petition for Panel Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc (May 25, 2012)

Response to Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc (June 22, 2012)

Order (July 20, 2012) (denying petition for rehearing en banc)

Mandate (July 31, 2012)

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (No. 12-488)

Petition for a writ of certiorari (Oct. 18, 2012)

Brief for the United States in Opposition (Jan. 22, 2013)

Reply of petitioner (Feb. 18, 2013)

Petition denied (Feb. 25, 2013)

 

United States v. Peake, No. 14-1088 (1st Cir. Oct. 14, 2015) (affirming a five-year sentence for a price-fixing conviction in the Puerto Rican shipping conspiracy)

Judgment (Oct. 15, 2015)

District court

Indictment, United States v. Peake, No. 3:11-cr-00512-DRD (D.P..R. returned Nov. 17, 2011)

Docket sheet (downloaded Dec. 10, 2015)

Jury instructions (Jan. 25, 2013)
Amended Opinion and Order (Jan. 25, 2015) (denying defendant's motion for mistrial)

Jury Verdict (Jan. 29, 2015)
Jury notes (filed Jan. 29, 2013)

Frank Peake’s Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report (Aug. 13, 2013)
Note: The Presentence Investigation Report is not publicly available

United States’ Sentencing Memorandum (Sept. 10, 2013)
Frank Peake’s Sentencing Memorandum (Sept. 13, 2013)

Exhibit 1: MLex report

Transcript of Sentencing Hearing (Dec. 6, 2013)

Opinion and Order (Dec. 6, 2013) (denying defendant's motion for new trial and judgment of acquittal)

Judgment in a Criminal Case (Dec. 6, 2013)

First Circuit

Docket sheet (downloaded Oct. 15, 2015)

Brief of Appellant Frank Peake (Aug. 7, 2014)

Brief for the United States of America (Oct. 9, 2014)

Reply Brief of Appellant Frank Peake (Nov. 26, 2014)

Beaver indictment

Indictment, United States v. Ma-ri-al Corporation d/b/a Beaver Materials Corp. et al., Cause No. IP 06-61-CR-01 M/F (S.D. Ind. filed Apr. 11, 2006) (against Ma-ri-al Corporation d/b/a Beaver Materials Corp., Chris A. Beaver, Ricky J. Beaver, and John J. Blatzheim)

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release, Indianapolis Ready Mixed Concrete Producer and Three Executives Indicted on Price-Fixing Charge (Apr. 11, 2006)

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release, Indiana Ready Mixed Concrete Producer and President Agree to Plead Guilty to Price-Fixing Charge (Apr. 27, 2006)

± DOJ case filing web site

Beaver trial

Jury charge (Nov. 16, 2006) (from the trial transcript)

Verdict (Nov. 16, 2006)

Docket sheet (Beaver) (downloaded Feb. 10, 2012)
Docket sheet (MA-RI-AL) (downloaded Feb. 10, 2012)

Criminal information sheet (Apr. 11, 2006)
Praecipe for summons (Apr. 11, 2006)
Pretrial service order (Apr. 12, 2006)
Agreed-Upon Protective Order (Apr. 25, 2006)

United States' Trial Brief (Oct. 16, 2006)
United States' Proposed Voir Dire Questions (Nov. 2, 2006)
United States' Proposed Jury Instructions (Nov. 8, 2006)

Trial transcript (Nov. 13, 2006) (trial commences)
Trial transcript (Nov. 14, 2006)
Trial transcript (Nov. 15, 2006) (evidence closed)
Trial transcript (Nov. 16, 2006) (including closing arguments and jury charge)

Defendants' Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 (Nov. 15, 2006)

Verdict (Nov. 16, 2006)

Defendants Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c) (Nov. 22, 2006)

Government's Response to Defendants' Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c) (Nov. 28, 2006)

Order on Defendants' Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c) (Jan. 23, 2007)

Judgment (Dec. 20, 2006) (finding all defendants guilty)

Jury trials generally
 

United States’ Motion for Additional Jury Instruction, United States v. AU Optronics Corp., No. CR-09-0110 SI (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2012) (seeking additional instructions for jurors not to sleep during deliberations)

Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Handbook for Jurors Serving in the United States District Courts

Judgment

NB: Some of the judgments have a civil case number header because they were exhibits in the follow-on civil action.

Judgment in a Criminal Case against Irving Materials, Inc.

United States' Sentencing Memorandum (Feb. 6, 2007) (with respect to Chris Beaver)

Judgment in a Criminal Case (Feb. 20, 2007) (against Chris Beaver) (sentenced to 27 months incarceration, 2 years supervised release, and a fine of $5000)

 

Defendant Chris Beaver's Objection To Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (Jan. 19, 2007)

Defendant's Presentence Memorandum (Jan. 29, 2007) (for Chris Beaver)

Court transcript (Feb. 9, 2007) (hearing on defendant's objections to United States Sentencing Memorandum)

Courtroom minutes (Feb. 9, 2007)

Amended Judgment in a Criminal Case against Fred R. (“Pete”) Irving (Dec. 9, 2005) (pleaded guilty; correction of sentence by sentencing court)

Amended Judgment in a Criminal Case against Scott D. Hughey (Dec. 14, 2006) (pleaded guilty; correction of sentence for clerical mistake)

Judgment in a Criminal Case against Builder's Concrete and Supply Company, Inc.

Judgment in a Criminal Case against Gus B. (“Butch”) Nuckols III

Judgment in a Criminal Case against Daniel C. Butler

Judgment in a Criminal Case against John J. Blatzheim

Judgment in a Criminal Case against John Huggins

Judgment in a Criminal Case against MA-RI-AL Corporation

Judgment in a Criminal Case against Price C. Irving

Beaver appeal

Notice of Appeal (Feb. 20, 2007)

Review United States v. Beaver, No. 07-1381 (7th Cir. Feb. 4, 2008) (affirming conviction) (reported at 515 F.3d 730)

± Oral argument (Oct. 22, 2007) (audio file)

Seventh Circuit Docket sheet

Brief and Required Short Appendix of Defendant-Appellant, Chris Beaver (May 23, 2007)

Brief for Appellant United States of America (June 21, 2007)

Reply Brief of Defendant-Appellant, Chris Beaver (July 6, 2007)

± DOJ case filing web page

For more on appeals of criminal convictions, see the AUO case.

Beaver incarceration and probation

 

Request for Early Termination of Supervision (Mar. 23, 2010)

Order (Mar. 25, 2010) (approving request)

Reference Materials

Significant criminal price fixing precedents

United States v. Wise, 370 U.S. 405 (1962) (employee liability)

See Clayton Act § 14, 15 U.S.C. § 24 (not exclusive after Wise)

United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 (1978) (criminal intent) (± Oyez)

± United States v. Anderson, 326 F.3d 1319, 1323 (11th Cir. 2003) (mechanics)

United States v. Cinemette Corp. of Am., 687 F. Supp. 976 (W.D. Pa. 1988) (criminal prosecutorial discretion)

± Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. United States, 442 F.3d 177 (3d Cir. 2006) (enforcement of immunity agreement under DOJ corporate leniency program) (± DOJ web page)

Basic materials

± DOJ Criminal Enforcement web page

± U.S. Dep't of Justice, United States Attorney's Manual

± U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Grand Jury Manual

± U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Antitrust Division Manual (5th ed. rev. Mar. 2014)

± ABA Antitrust Section Cartel and Criminal Practice web page

ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Handbook on Antitrust Grand Jury Investigations (3d ed. 2002)

ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Criminal Antitrust Litigation Handbook (2d ed. 2006)

Criminal penalties—Statutory history

The Act of July 7, 1955, Pub. L. No. 84-135, 69 Stat. 282 (1955) (increasing maximum criminal fine to $50,000 from $5000)

The Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, Pub. L. 93-528, § 3, 88 Stat. 1706 (1974) (increasing maximum corporate fine to $1 million, maximum individual fine to $100,000, and maximum individual imprisonment to three years; made a violation of the Sherman Act a felony)

The Antitrust Amendments Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-588, § 4, 104 Stat. 2880 (1990) (increasing maximum corporate fine to $10 million and maximum individual fine to $350,000)

The Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-237, title II, § 215, 118 Stat. 668 (2004) (increasing maximum corporate fine to $100 million, maximum individual fine to $1,000,000, and maximum individual imprisonment to three years)

Exercise of prosecutorial discretion

± U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Antitrust Division Manual Ch.3 C.1 (5th ed. updated Mar. 2014) (providing nonbinding guidance of situations where nominally "hard core" per se cases should not be prosecuted criminally)

± R. Hewitt Pate, Ass't Att'y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Vigorous and Principled Antitrust Enforcement: Priorities and Goals, Address Before the Antitrust Section of the ABA Annual Meeting, at 6 (Aug. 12, 2003)

Prosecution and general deterrence

± London Economics, The Impact of Competition Interventions on Compliance and Deterrence (Dec. 2011) (report commissioned by the U.K. Office of Fair Trading)

Requirement of criminal intent

United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 (1978) (± Oyez)

United States v. Cinemette Corp. of Am., 687 F. Supp. 976 (W.D. Pa. 1988)

Criminal enforcement activity

± U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Workload Statistics FY 2002 - 2011

± U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Sherman Act Violations Yielding a Corporate Fine of $10 Million or More

Brent Snyder, Dep. Ass't Att'y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Individual Accountability for Antitrust Crimes, Remarks as Prepared for the Yale School of Management Global Antitrust Enforcement Conference, New Haven, CT (Feb. 19, 2016).

Scott D. Hammond, Dep. Ass't Att'y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Detroit presentation (Feb. 15, 2013)

Gregory J. Werden, Scott D. Hammond & Belinda A. Barnett, Deterrence and Detection of Cartels: Using All the Tools and Sanctions, Paper Delivered to the 26th Annual National Institute on White Collar Crime, Miami, FL (Mar. 1, 2012).

± Robert H. Lande & Joshua P. Davis, The Extraordinary Deterrence of Private Antitrust Enforcement: A Reply to Werden, Hammond & Barnett (Aug. 6, 2012).

Gregory J. Werden, Scott D. Hammond & Belinda A. Barnett, Recidivism Eliminated: Cartel Enforcement in the United States since 1999, Paper Delivered Before the Before the: Georgetown Global Antitrust Enforcement Symposium, Washington, D.C. (Sept. 22, 2011).

Scott D. Hammond, Dep. Ass't Att'y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice,The Evolution of Criminal Antitrust Enforcement over the Last Two Decades, Remarks Before the ABA Criminal Justice Section 24th Annual National Institute On White Collar Crime, Miami, Florida (Feb. 25, 2010).

Scott D. Hammond, Dep. Ass't Att'y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Recent Developments, Trends, and Milestones in the Antitrust Division's Criminal Enforcement Program, Prepared Remarks Before the ABA Section of Antitrust Law Spring Meeting (Mar. 26, 2008)

Belinda A. Barnett, Senior Counsel to the Dep. Ass't Att'y Gen. for Criminal Enforcement, Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Criminalization of Cartel Conduct–The Changing Landscape, Remarks Before the Joint Federal Court of Australia/ Law Council of Australia (Business Law Section) Workshop (Apr. 3, 2009)

Scott D. Hammond, Dep. Ass't Att'y Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Charting New Waters in International Criminal Prosecutions, Address at the National Institute on White Collar Crime (Mar. 2, 2006)

Optimal deterrence theory

± Joseph E. Harrington, Jr., When is an antitrust authority not aggressive enough in fighting cartels?, 7 Int'l J. Econ. Theory 39 (2011).

± William H. Page, Optimal Antitrust Remedies: A Synthesis (rev. June 11, 2012).

± Alberto Heimler & Kirtikumar Mehta, Violations of Antitrust Provisions:The Optimal Level of Fines for Achieving Deterrence, 35 World Competition 103 (2012).

± John M. Connor & Robert H. Lande, Optimal Cartel Deterrence: An Empirical Comparison of Sanctions To Overcharges (Sept. 19, 2011).

± Harold E. D. Houba, Evgenia Motchenkova & Quan Wen, Antitrust Enforcement and Marginal Deterrence (Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper No. 11-166/1, Nov. 22, 2011).

± Douglas H. Ginsburg & and Wright, Joshua D., Antitrust Sanctions, Competition Pol'y Int'l, Vol. 6, No. 2, Autumn 2010, at 3.

± Joseph E. Harrington, Jr., Comment on Antitrust Sanctions, Competition Pol'y Int'l, Vol. 6, No. 2, Autumn 2010, at 41.

± Robert H. Lande & Joshua P. Davis, Comparative Deterrence from Private Enforcement and Criminal Enforcement of the U.S. Antitrust Laws (Mar. 5, 2010).

± Emmanuel Combe & Constance Monnier, Fines Against Hard Core Cartels in Europe: The Myth of Over Enforcement (Cahiers de Recherche PRISM-Sorbonne Working Paper, June 8, 2009).

± R. Preston McAfee, Hugo M. Mialon & Sue H. Mialon, Private v. Public Antitrust Enforcement: A Strategic Analysis (Jan. 13, 2008), final version at 92 J. Pub. Econ. 1863 (2008).

± Ilya R. Segal & Michael D. Whinston, Public vs. Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law: A Survey (Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 335, Dec. 15, 2006).

± Wouter P. J. Wils, Optimal Antitrust Fines: Theory and Practice (____), final version at 29 World Competition ___ (June 2006).

William M. Landes, Optimal Sanctions for Antitrust Violations, 50 U. Chi. L. Rev. 652 (1983).

± Gary Becker, Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach, 76 J. Pol. Econ. 169(1968).

Employee participation in cartels

Nicole Rosenboom, Career development after cartel prosecution (2011), final version at 8 J. Competition L. & Econ. 145 (2012)

Probability of detection

± Ari Hyytinen, Frode Steen & Otto Toivanen, Cartels Uncovered (Mar. 11, 2011).

± Emmanuel Combe, Constance Monnier & Renaud Legal, Cartels: The Probability of Getting Caught in the European Union (Bruges European Economic Research Paper No. 12, Mar. 2008).

Peter G Bryant & E. Woodrow Eckard, Price Fixing: The Probability of Getting Caught, 73 Rev. Econ. Statistics 531 (1991).

Recidivism

± John M. Connor, Recidivism Revealed: Private International Cartels 1991-2009 (Sept. 25, 2010), final version at Competition Pol'y Int'l, Autumn 2010, at 101.

± Gregory J. Werden, Scott D. Hammond & Belinda A. Barnett, Recidivism Eliminated: Cartel Enforcement In The United States Since 1999, Paper Delivered at the Before the: Georgetown Global Antitrust Enforcement Symposium, Washington, D.C. (Sept. 22, 2011).

Trial practice

± Robert H. Bunzel & Howard Miller, Defending “The Last Man Standing”: Trench Lessons from the 2008 Criminal Antitrust Trial United States v. Swanson, The Antitrust Source, June 2008, at 1.

± F. Joseph Warin, David P. Burns & John W.F. Chesley, To Plead or Not to Plead? Reviewing a Decade of Criminal Antitrust Trials, Antitrust Source, July 2006, at 1.

Criminal jury instructions

ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Model Jury Instructions in Criminal Antitrust Cases (2009).

ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Cartel and Criminal Practice Committee, Model Criminal Antitrust Jury Instructions web site (may require ABA Antitrust Section membership).

Criminal statute of limitations

United States v. Kissel, 218 U.S. 601 (1910).

Enforceability of cooperation commitments

± Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. United States, 442 F.3d 177 (3d Cir. 2006) (enforcement of immunity agreement under DOJ corporate leniency program) (± DOJ web page)

± Ed Magarian, William Michael Jr., Michael Lindsay & James Nichols, To Cooperate or Not: The Corporate Leniency Program After Stolt-Nielsen, Antitrust Source, Feb. 2008.

± Sarah Baumgartel, Nonprosecution Agreements as Contracts: Stolt-Nielsen and the Question of Remedy for a Prosecutor’s Breach, 2008 Wis. L. Rev. 25 (2008).

Plea bargaining

± Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Competition Committee, Plea Bargaining/Settlement Of Cartel Cases (DAF/COMP(2007)38, Jan. 22, 2008).

Nolo pleas

Indictment, United States v. Florida West Int'l Airways, Inc., No. 10-cr-20864 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2010) (DOJ news release)

Docket sheet (downloaded July 19, 2012)

Defendant Florida West’s Motion for Consent to Enter Plea of Nolo Contendere (Apr. 27, 2012) (Exhibit 1)

Government’s Opposition to Defendant Florida West’s Motion to Enter a Plea of Nolo Contendere (May 10. 2012)

Florida West’s Reply to Government’s Opposition to Consent to Enter Plea of Nolo Contendere (May 21, 2012)

Oral argument (June 2, 2012)

Order Setting Change of Plea Hearing (July 3, 2012)

Notice of Filing (July 6, 2012)

Exhibit 1: Corporate Resolution Of Florida West International Airways. Inc.

Government’s Motion for Clarification on Pending Matters Related to the Defendant’s Motion to Enter a Nolo Contendere Plea (July 17, 2012)

United States’ Notice of the Maximum Penalties (July 17, 2012)

Florida West’s Response to Government’s Motion for Clarification (July 18, 2012)

Order Granting Florida West’s Motion for Consent Enter Plea of Nolo Contendere (July 20, 2012)

± DOJ web page

Economics of leniency policies

± Catarina Marvão & Giancarlo Spagnolo, What Do We Know about the Effectiveness of Leniency Policies? A Survey of the Empirical and Experimental Evidence (Oct. 2014).

± Joan-Ramon Borrell, Juan Luis Jiménez & Carmen García, Evaluating Antitrust Leniency Programs (Oct. 2012), final version at 10 J. Competition L. & Econ. 107 (2014).

± Joseph Harrington, Corporate Leniency Programs when Firms have Private Information: The Push of Prosecution and the Pull of Pre-Emption, 61 J. Indus. Econ. 1 (2013).

Zhijun Chen & Patrick Rey. On the Design of Leniency Programs, 56 J.L. & Econ. 917 (2013) (± working paper)

± Joseph E. Harrington, Jr. & Myong-Hun Chang, Endogenous Antitrust Enforcement in the Presence of a Corporate Leniency Program (Nov. 30, 2012).

± Jun Zhou, Evaluating Leniency and Modeling Cartel Durations: Time-Varying Policy Impacts and Sample Selection (rev. Oct. 05, 2011).

± Myong-Hun Chang & Joseph E. Harrington, Jr., The Impact of a Corporate Leniency Program on Antitrust Enforcement and Cartelization (rev. Apr. 2010).

Nathan H. Miller, Strategic Leniency and Cartel Enforcement (Nov. 2007) (shorter version published at 99 Am. Econ. Rev. 750 (2009)).

Michele Polo & Massimo Motta, Leniency Programs, in 3 Issues In Competition Law and Policy 2219 (ABA Section of Antitrust Law 2008).

± Joseph E. Harrington, Jr., Optimal Corporate Leniency Programs (rev. July 2005), final version at 56 J. Indus. Econ. 215 (2008).

± Christopher R. Leslie, Cartels, Agency Costs, and Finding Virtue in Faithless Agents, 49 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1621 (2008).

± Jeroen Hinloopen & Adriaan R. Soetevent, From Overt to Tacit Collusion: Experimental Evidence on the Adverse Effects of Corporate Leniency Programs (May 2008).

Giancarlo Spagnolo, Leniency and Whistleblowers in Antitrust, in Handbook of Antitrust Economics (Paolo Buccirossi ed., 2008).

± Zhijun Chen & Patrick Rey, On the Design of Leniency Programs (Apr. 2007).

Joe Chen & Joseph E. Harrington, The Impact of the Corporate Leniency Program on Cartel Formation and the Cartel Price Path, in The Political Economy of Antitrust (Vivek Ghosal & John Stennek eds., 2007) (± working paper)

± Cécile Aubert, Patrick Rey & William E. Kovacic, The Impact of Leniency and Whistleblowing Programs on Cartels, 24 Int'l J. Indus. Org. 1241 (2006) (preprint).

± Wouter P.J. Wils, Leniency in Antitrust Enforcement: Theory and Practice, 30 World Competition: L. & Econ. 25 (March 2007).

Leniency and multimarket collusion

± Yassine Lefouili & Catherine Roux, Leniency Programs for Multimarket Firms: The Effect of Amnesty Plus on Cartel Formation (Core Discussion Paper No. 2010/21, May 2010)

± Catherine Roux & Thomas von Ungern-Sternberg, Leniency Programs in a Multimarket Setting: Amnesty Plus and Penalty Plus (May 2007).

ACPERA

Oracle America, Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc., No. 10-cv-04340-PJH (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2011) (reported at 2011 WL 4352314) (holding that application of ACPERA's civil damages limitation did not have impermissible retroactive effect in the circumstances of the case)

Docket sheet (downloaded Jan. 12, 2012)

Complaint (Sept. 24, 2010)

Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc.’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike the Twenty-First Affirmative Defense Asserted In Defendants’ Amended Answer (May 9, 2011) (Declaration) (Exhibit 1) (Exhibit 2)

Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defense No. 21 (June 10, 2011) (Declaration) (Exhibit A) (Exhibit B) (Exhibit C) (Exhibit D)

Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc.’s Reply in Further Support of its Motion to Strike Micron’s Twenty-First Affirmative Defense (June 24, 2011) (Declaration) (Exhibit A) (Exhibit B) (Exhibit C)

Order Denying Motion To Strike Affirmative Defense (Sept. 16, 2011)

 

In re Air Cargo Shipping Servs. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1775, 2009 WL 3077396 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2009)

Order Denying Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Amnesty Application Defendant To Comply With ACPERA, In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., No. M 07-1827 SI (N.D. Cal. 2009) (reported as 618 F. Supp. 2d 1194) (finding that ACPERA did not authorize court to compel an amnesty applicant to identify itself and cooperate with civil antitrust plaintiffs)

 

In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litig., 252 F.R.D. 184 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

 

Chemtura’s Motion for a Finding of “Satisfactory Cooperation” and Limitation of Damages Pursuant to the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, In re Urethane Antitrust Litig. (Polyester Polyol), Civ. No. 04-md-01616-JWL (D. Kan. filed June 22, 2007)

Minute Entry (Oct. 19, 2007) (denying as Chemtura's motion as moot in light of settlement)

 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litig., No. 1:03-cv-04576 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 26, 2005) (reported at 231 F.R.D. 320)

Docket sheet (downloaded Apr. 9, 2010)

Marsulex, Inc. and Chemtrade Logistics (U.S.), Inc.'s Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Agreed Motion for a Finding of “Satisfactory Cooperation” and Limitation of Damages Pursuant to the Antitrust Criminal Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 (June 30, 2005) (Motion)

Criminal fines

United States' Sentencing Memorandum re Eagle Eyes and E-Lite, United States v. Eagle Eyes Traffic Indus. Co., No. CR-11-0488 RS (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 10, 2012)

Superceding Indictment (Nov. 30, 2011)

Defendants Eagle Eyes’ and E-Lite Automotives: [1] Statement Regarding Material Terms of Guilty Plea; [2] Unopposed Request for Immediate/Expedited Sentencing under L.R. 32-1(B); and [3] Sentencing Memorandum (Oct. 8, 2012)

Corporate probation

± 18 U.S.C. § 3561 (sentence of probation)

U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 8D (rev. Nov. 1, 2011) (Organizational Probation)

See 18 U.S.C. § 3561 (Sentence of probation); § 3565 (revocation of probation)

Defendants Eagle Eyes’ and E-Lite’s Reply to United States’ Sentencing Memorandum and Supplemental Declaration of Kenneth B. Julian in Support Thereof, United States v. Eagle Eyes Traffic Indus. Co., No. CR-11-0488 RS (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 12, 2012)

Nonprosecution agreements

Letter from Sharis A. Pozen, Acting Ass't Att'y Gen., U.S. Dept. of Justice Antitrust Div., to Karen Patton Seymour, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (Dec. 8, 2011) (regarding Wachovia nonprosecution agreement in the municipal bonds investigation)

Letter from Christine A. Varney, Ass't Att'y Gen., U.S. Dept. of Justice Antitrust Div., to Kenneth A. Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (May 4, 2011) (regarding UBS non-prosecution agreement in the municipal bonds investigation)

Letter from Christine A. Varney, Ass't Att'y Gen., U.S. Dept. of Justice Antitrust Div., to Thomas Mueller, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr (Jul. 6, 2011) (regarding JPMorgan non-prosecution agreement in the municipal bonds investigation)

Letter from Niall Lynch, Ass't Chief, San Francisco Field Office, U.S. Dept. of Justice Antitrust Div., to Robert B. Pringle, Thelen Reid & Priest LLP (Jan. 20, 2006) (regarding NEC's non-prosecution agreement in the DRAM investigation)

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Corporate Crime: DOJ Has Taken Steps to Better Track Its Use of Deferred and Non-Prosecution Agreements, but Should Evaluate Effectiveness (GAO-10-110, Dec. 2009).

Restitution and crime victim's rights

± DOJ web site on victims' rights

± Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97- 291, 96 Stat. 1248 (1982) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 3663).

Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771

U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5E (rev. Nov. 1, 2011) (Restitution, Fines, Assessments, Forfeitures)

± United States’ and Defendant Polo Shu-Sheng Hsu’s Joint Sentencing Memorandum, United States v. Polo Hsu, No. 11-cr-0061 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2011) (explaining that restitution was not sought because the private case ‘‘potentially provide[s] for a recovery of a multiple of actual damages.’’) (docket sheet) (± DOJ web site)

Order Requesting Sentencing Information, United States v. Samsung SDI Co., No. 11-cr-00162 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2011) (requiring the probation officer to "do a full analysis of potential restitution and where the civil case stands" and to interview counsel in the civil litigation on the restitution issue)

Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.'s Sentencing Memorandum (Aug. 8, 2011)

United States’ Sentencing Memorandum (Aug. 8, 2011)

Transcript (Aug. 16, 2011)

Judgment in a Criminal Case (Aug. 19, 2011) (declining to order restitution because ‘‘over 40 separate civil cases filed on behalf of direct and/or indirect purchasers have been coordinated and [are] pending’’)

Information, United States v. Arctic Glacier Int'l, Inc., 1:09 CR 149 (S.D. Ohio filed Sept. 10, 2009 ) (unsealed Oct. 13, 2009) (± DOJ web page)

Plea agreement (Oct. 13, 2009)

Motion to Establish Procedure for Crime Victim Notification (Oct. 23, 2009)

Victims' Emergency Motion for a Declaration under the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Postponement of the Arraignment, or in the Alternative, Postponement of Acceptance of the Plea Agreement (Oct. 27, 2009)

Order (Nov. 12, 2009) (denying the request to deem any individuals to be "crime victims" under the Crime Victims' Rights Act pending investigation by the United States Probation Department and granting the request for postponement of the arraignment) (Dkt. No. 25)

Victims' Objections to Plea Agreement and Request that It Be Rejected (Feb. 1, 2010)

Exhibit A: Letter to Laura Jensen, United States Probation Officer
Exhibit B: Amended Complaint, McNulty v. Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., No. 2:08-cv-13178 (E.D. Mich. filed Dec. 2, 2008)
Exhibit C: Consolidated Class Action complaint, Chamberlain v. Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., No. 08-13451 (PDB) (E.D. Mich. filed Nov. 2, 2009)

Transcript of Sentencing Hearing (Feb. 11, 2010)

Minute Order (Feb. 11, 2010) (sentencing defendant)) (Dkt. No. 39)

Transcript (Feb. 16, 2010)

Notice of Appeal (Feb. 18, 2010)

Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3), In re Acker, No.10-3159 (6th Cir. filed Feb. 18, 2010)

Docket sheet (downloaded June 17, 2012)

Answer of the United States of America to Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Feb. 19, 2010)

Order, In re Acker, No. 10-3159 (6th Cir. Feb. 22, 2010) (denying petition for a writ of mandamus and granting motion to dismiss appeal) (finding that the district court reasonably concluded that the difficulty of determining the losses for purposes of restitution claimed would so prolong and complicate the proceedings that any need for restitution would be outweighed by the burden on the sentencing process) (reported as 596 F.3d 370)

Judgment in a Criminal Case (Mar. 3, 2010)

Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Pursuant to the Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3), In re Martin McNulty, No. 10-3201 (6th Cir. filed Feb. 24, 2010)

Docket sheet (downloaded June 17, 2012)

Answer of the United States of America to Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Feb. 26, 2010)

Reply in Support of Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Pursuant to the Crime Victim’s Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(D)(3) (Feb. 26, 2010)

Opinion, In re Martin McNulty, No. 10-3201 (6th Cir. Mar. 1, 2010) (reported as 597 F.3d 344)

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Press Release, Bank of America Agrees to Pay $137.3 Million in Restitution to Federal and State Agencies as a Condition of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Corporate Leniency Program (Dec. 7, 2010)

± Jay L. Himes & Seth R. Gassman, No Rest(itution) for the Weary: Crime Victims and Treble Damages in Antitrust Cases, Antitrust & Trade Regulation Report, 101 ATRR 634 (Nov. 11, 2011).

± John M. Majoras & Eric P. Enson, The Crime Victims’ Rights Act: Its Impact on Plea Negotiations with the Antitrust Division, Antitrust Source, Dec. 2010, at 1.

Obstruction of justice

18 U.S.C. § 1503
(obstruction of justice)

± U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Grand Jury Manual ch. VIII.B (obstruction of justice)

Information, United States v. Pool Fish Distribs. Inc, Crim. No. 1:04 CR 521 (N.D. Ohio filed Oct. 19, 2004) (news release)

Plea agreement (Dec. 2, 2004)

Information, United States v. Censullo, CR 03 0368 PJH (N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 17, 2003) (news release)

Plea agreement (Dec. 21, 2003)

Tax treatment of criminal fines

± 26 U.S.C. § 162(f) ("No deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) 0deduction for business expenses] for any fine or similar penalty paid to a government for the violation of any law.")

Extradition

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release, First Ever Extradition on Antitrust Charge (Apr. 4, 2014)

Indictment, United States v. Pisciotti, No. 0:10-cr-60232-JIC-1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2011)

Docket sheet (downloaded Apr. 4, 2014)

Report Commencing Criminal Action (Apr. 4, 2014)

Plea Agreement (Apr. 24, 2014)

Second Superseding Indictment, United States v. Norris, Crim. No. 03-632 (E.D. Pa. filed Sept. 28, 2004)

Docket sheet (downloaded Sept. 1, 2011)

Ian P. Norris’s Motion for Acquittal or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial (Aug. 13, 2010)

Memorandum In Support of Ian P. Norris’s Motion for Acquittal or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial (Aug. 13, 2010)

Government's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Acquittal or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial (Sept. 2, 2010) (exhibits)

Reply Memorandum In Support of Ian P. Norris’s Motion for Acquittal or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial (Oct. 13, 2010) (exhibit)

Government's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Leave to File a Reply Memorandum in Support of His Motion for Acquittal or for a New Trial, or, in the Alternative, Government's Sur-Reply (Nov. 4, 2010)

Memorandum Order (Dec. 1, 2010) (denying defendant's motion)

Government's Sentencing Memorandum (Dec. 3, 2010) (exhibits)

Judgment in a Criminal Case (Dec. 13, 2010) (finding Norris guilty of conspiracy to obstruct justice under 18 U.S.C. § 371) (DOJ press release)

On appeal:

Brief for Appellant Ian P. Norris (Jan. 21, 2011)

Brief for the United States (Feb. 11, 2011)

Reply Brief For Appellant Ian P. Norris (Feb. 25, 2011)

Opinion, United States v. Norris, No. 10-4658 (3d Cir. Mar. 23, 2011)

Third Circuit docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 17, 2011)

± DOJ web site

Norris v. United States, [2008] A.C. __ (H.L.) (criminal appeal from High Court of Justice) (denying extradition of UK national to the United States on price-fixing charges since at the time of the conduct price fixing was not a criminal offense in the UK. The alleged price-fixing cartel ended in 2000. Two years later, the Enterprise Act of 2002 made price fixing a criminal offense in the United Kingdom for the first time)

± Russell Hotten, Ian Norris wins appeal against US extradition, Telegraph.com.uk, Mar. 12, 2008

Norris v. United States, [2010] UKSC 9 (upholding order of extradition on charges of obstruction of justice)

Commentary—Extradition:

Michael D. Goldhaber, Bully Pulpit: Vacuum Cleaner Justice, American Lawyer.com (July 1, 2010)

Commentary—Privilege:

± Sue Reisinger, Case of Imprisoned British Exec Ian Norris Carries Major Privilege Implications, Law.com Corporate Counsel (Jan. 21, 2011)

Travel restrictions

± Jason Brown, Mark S. Popofsky & Anthony Biagioli, Restraining Liberty before a Verdict is in Sight, Global Competition Rev., May 2011, at 36.

Detention pending appeal

United States v. Chen, No. 12-10493 (9th Cir. ____).

Docket sheet (downloaded Jan. 9, 2013)
See here for the district court proceeding

Order Re: Self Surrender (Hui Hsiung and Hsuan Bin Chen) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2012).

Motion for Release Pending Appeal (Nov. 26, 2013)

Opposition of the United States of America to Defendants Hui Hsiung and Hsuan Bin Chen's Motions for Bail Pending Appeal (Dec. 10, 2012)

Exhibits

Order (Dec. 21, 2012) (consolidating cases)

Order Stating Reasons for Denying Defendants’ Motions for Bail Pending Appeal (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2012)

Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for Release Pending Appeal (Dec. 31, 2012).

Defendant Hui Hsiung’s Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for Bail Pending Appeal (Dec. 31, 2012)

Supplemental Opposition of the United States of America to Defendants Hui Hsiung and Hsuan Bin Chen’s Motions for Bail Pending Appeal (Jan. 7, 2013)

Equitable relief in DOJ cases–disgorgement

Memorandum and Order, United States v. Keyspan Corp., No. 10-1415 (WHP) (Feb. 2, 2011) (entering consent decree requiring disgorgement)

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 3, 2011)

Complaint (Feb. 2, 2010)
Stipulation (Feb. 2, 2010)
Proposed Final Judgment (Feb. 2, 2010)
Competitive Impact Statement (Feb. 3, 2010)
Plaintiff United States' Explanation of Consent Decree Procedures (Feb. 23, 2010)

Plaintiff United States's Response to Public Comments (June 11, 2010)

AARP comments
Con Ed comments
NYCEDC comments
NYSCPB comments
New York PSC comments
PaPUC comments
Nelson M. Stewart comments

Notice of Amended Stipulation (June 17, 2010)
Proposed Final Judgment (June 17, 2010) (revised)

United States's Motion and Supporting Memorandum to Enter Final Judgment (July 20, 2010) (proposed final judgment)

United States's Submission of Declaration of Oliver M. Richard in Support of Its Motion to Enter Final Judgment (Oct. 26, 2010) (Richard declaration)

Memorandum and Order (Feb. 2, 2010)
Final Judgment (Feb. 2, 2010) (appeals forms)

± DOJ web site

Complaint, United States v. Morgan Stanley, No. 11-cv-6875 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 30, 2011) (DOJ press release).

Stipulation by the United States and Morgan Stanley (Sept. 30, 2011)

[Proposed] Final Judgment (Sept. 30, 2011)

Competitive Impact Statement (Sept. 30, 2011)

Plaintiff United States' Explanation of Consent Decree Procedures (Sept. 30, 2011)

Response of Plaintiff United States to Public Comments on the Proposed Final Judgment (Mar. 6, 2012)

Attachment 1 - Comments of the Public Service Commission of the State of New York (Dec. 30, 2011)
Attachment 2 - AARP Comments in Opposition to Proposed Settlement and in Support Of Further Proceedings (Dec. 8, 2011)

Opinion (Aug. 7, 2012) (entering final judgment)

± DOJ web site

International cartel enforcement

Simon J. Evenett, Margaret C. Levenstein & Valerie Y. Suslow, International Cartel Enforcement: Lessons from the 1990s (University of Massachusetts - Amherst, Economics Department Working Paper No. 89, July 11, 2001), final version at 24 The World Economy 1221 (2001).

Mail and wire fraud

United States v. Fenzl, No. 11-2459 (7th Cir. 2012) (reported at 670 F.3d 778) (order correcting opinion) (± oral argument)

± DOJ web page

Non-U.S. prosecution

U.K. Office of Fair Trading, OFT's Guidance as to the Appropriate Amount of a Penalty (Sept. 10, 2012) (± OFT press release).

Case Studies

Citicorp (2015)
TFT-LCD cartel (AUO)
TFT-LCD cartel (indirect purchasers)
Refrigerant Compressors (2010)
Iowa Ready-Mixed Concrete cartel
DRAM cartel
Therm-All

Aubrey K. McClendon
(2015)

Indictment, United States v. Aubrey McClendon, No. ____ (W.D. Okla. returned ____).

Commentary

± Heide Brandes, Energy pioneer McClendon dies in fiery car crash, a day after indictment, Reuters.com, Mar. 3, 2016

FX rate: United States v. Citicorp
(2015)

Information, United States v. Citicorp, No. 3:15-cr-00078-SRU (D. Conn. filed June 20, 2015)

Docket sheet (downloaded Jan. 10, 2016)

Plea Agreement (June 20, 2015)

Transcript (May 20, 2015) (waivers and pleas)

TFT-LCD cartel:
United States v.
AU Optronics Corp.
(2010)

Superseding Indictment, United States v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 3:09-CR-00110 (N.D. Cal. filed June 10, 2010)

Docket sheet (downloaded Jan. 12, 2016)

Related Case Order (Feb. 19, 2009)

Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Indictment (____)

Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Suppress (____)

Order Excluding Time under the Speedy Trial Act (July 15, 2010)

Order Denying Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the Indictment and for a Bill of Particular (Jan. 29, 2011)

Order Denying Defendants’ Motion To Suppress (May 24, 2011)

United States’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Order Regarding Fact Finding for Sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d) (June 24, 2011)

Opposition of Defendants AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America to Government's Motion for Bifurcation and Order Regarding Fact Finding for Sentencing (July 6, 2011)

United States’ Reply in Support of Motion for Order Regarding Fact Finding for Sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d) (July 11, 2011)

Order Denying United States’ Motion for Order Regarding Fact Finding for Sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d) (July 18, 2011) (requiring government to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt any fact that would enable the court to assess a fine in excess of the maximum provided in the Sherman Act)

United States’ Trial Memorandum (Dec. 9, 2011)

Jury Instructions (Mar. 1, 2012)

Defendants’ Proposed Preliminary Jury Instructions on the Elements of the Offense, and Memorandum in Support of Proposed Instruction (Nov. 2, 2011)

United States’ Opposition to Defendants’ Proposed Preliminary Jury Instructions on the Elements of the Offense; United States’ Proposed Alternative Preliminary Instruction (Nov. 23, 2011)

Defendants’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Proposed Jury Instructions (Dec. 6, 2011)

United States’ Proposed Jury Instruction Regarding 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d); Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Proposed Instructions (Nov. 10, 2011)

United States’ Reply Memorandum In Further Support Of Proposed Jury Instruction Regarding 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d) (Dec. 5, 2011)

Defendant Dr. Lai-Juh Chen’s Proposed Jury Instruction Regarding Liability of Superiors for Acts of Subordinates; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Proposed Instructions (Nov. 30, 3011)

United States’ Proposed Jury Instructions (Dec. 9, 2011)

Defendants’ Proposed Jury Instructions (Dec. 9, 2011)

Order Re: Preliminary Jury Instructions (Dec. 23, 2011)


United States’ Proposed Preliminary Jury Instructions (Jan. 1, 2012) (Attachment A)

Defendants’ Partial Opposition to Government’s Preliminary Instructions (Jan. 8, 2012) (exhibit)

Defendant Hsiung’s Proposed Preliminary Instruction on Economic Gain (Jan. 9, 2012)

Defendants’ Proposed Instruction re: Exchange of Price Information (Jan. 11, 2012) (Exhibit A)

United States’ Opposition to Defendants’ Proposed Instruction re: Exchange of Price Information (Jan. 12, 2012)

Defendants’ Proposed Instruction re: Exchange of Price Information (Jan. 17, 2012)

United States’ Opposition to Defendants’ Renewed Request for Proposed Instruction re: Exchange Of Price Information (Jan. 18, 2012)

Defendants’ Proposed Instruction re: Consideration of Guilty Pleas (Jan. 11, 2012)

United States’ Opposition to Defendants’ Proposed Instructions re: Consideration of Guilty Plea (Jan. 12, 2012)

Defendant H.B. Chen’s Request for Limiting Instruction re: Coconspirators (Jan. 19, 2012)

United States’ Proposed Instruction on Ignorance of Law (Jan. 25, 2012)

Defendants’ Opposition to Government’s Proposed Instruction on Ignorance of Law (Jan. 30, 2012)


Status Conference Statement of Defendants AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America re: Revised Juror Questionnaire (Nov. 23, 2011) (Exhibit A: Juror Questionnaire)

United States’ Statement Regarding Jury Questionnaire (Nov. 25, 2011)

Supplemental Statement of Defendants AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America re: Revised Juror Questionnaire (Nov. 27, 2011)

 

AUO Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Overcharge Testimony of Proposed Expert Keith Leffler, Ph.D. (Feb. 7, 2012)

Declaration of Joseph Kadane, Ph.D., in Support of AUO Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Overcharge Testimony of Proposed Expert Keith Leffler, Ph.D. (Feb. 7, 2012) (Exhibit A) (Exhibit B)

(Proposed) Order Granting AUO Defendants’ Motion In Limine To Exclude Overcharge Testimony Of Proposed Expert Keith Leffler, Ph.D. (Feb. 7, 2012)

The United States’ Opposition to Defendant H.B. Chen’s and Defendants AUO and AUOA’s Proposed Instructions on Leffler Testimony; Proposed Alternative Instruction (Feb. 9, 2012)

Defendant Hsuan Bin Chen’s [Proposed] Instruction on Testimony of Keith Leffler (Feb. 10, 2012)

 

Defendant AU Optronics Corporation America’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 29(a) (Feb. 16, 2012)

United States’ Opposition to Defendant AU Optronics Corporation America’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 29(a)) (Feb. 20, 2012)

 

United States’ Motion to Preclude Certain Jury Nullification Arguments at Closing (Feb. 22, 2012) (Exhibit A) (Exhibit B)

 

Stipulated and Party-Proposed Jury Instructions (Feb. 24, 2012) ( Dkt. No. 807)

Jury Instructions Draft - As of 2/24/1 (Feb. 24, 2012)

United States’ Memorandum Regarding Final Jury Instructions (Feb. 26, 2012)

AUO Defendants’ Response to United States’ Memorandum re: Final Jury Instructions (Feb. 26, 2012)

Jury Instructions (Feb. 27, 2012)
Jury Instructions (Mar. 1, 2012) (as given)

 

Special Verdict (Mar. 13, 2012) (finding Hui Hsiung guilty on Count 1, Hsuan Bin Chen guilty on Count 1, AU Optronics Corporation guilty on Count 1, and AU Optronics Corporation America guilty on Count 1; Tsannrong Lee not guilty on Count 1 and Lai-Juh Chen not guilty on Count 1) (mistrial for lack of jury unanimity on Shiu Lung Leung)

Trial transcript (Mar. 13, 2012) (return of jury verdict)

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Taiwan-Based AU Optronics Corporation, its Houston-Based Subsidiary and Former Top Executives Convicted for Role in LCD Price-Fixing Conspiracy (Mar. 13, 2012).

Clerk's trial worksheet (filed Mar. 13, 2012)

Judgment of Acquittal (Mar. 13, 2012) (as to Dr. L.J. Chen)
Judgment of Acquittal (Mar. 13, 2012) (as to Tsannrong Lee)
Order (Mar. 20, 2012) (exonerating of bonds as to Tsannrong Lee, Lai-Juh Chen)

Motion for Leave to File Post-Trial Motions (Apr. 20, 2012) (on behalf of AUO, AUOA, H. B. Chen, Hui Hsiung, and Stephen Leung)

Defendants’ Joint Memorandum in Support of Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, or in the Alternative, for New Trial (Apr. 20, 2012)

Defendant Hui Hsiung’s: 1. Motions for a Judgment of Acquittal and for a New Trial 2. Notice of Motions 3. Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Apr. 24, 2012)

United States’ Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Motion and Defendant Hui Hsiung’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, or in the Alternative, for New Trial (May 4, 2012)

Defendants’ Joint Reply in Support of Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or, in the Alternative, for New Trial (May 11, 2012)

Reply Brief in Support of Defendant Hui Hsiung’s Motions for a Judgment of Acquittal and for a New Trial (May 20, 2012)

Corrected Order Denying Motions for Judgment of Acquittal and for a New Trial (June 11, 2012)

Motion of Defendants AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America to Specially Set Sentencing Hearings (Aug. 31, 2012)

Defendant Hsiung’s Joinder in Motion of Defendants AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America to Specially Set Sentencing Hearings (Aug. 31, 2012)

United States’ Opposition to Motion of Defendants AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America to Specially Set Sentencing Hearing (Aug. 31, 2012)

Reply of Defendants AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America in Support of Motion to Specially Set Sentencing Hearings (Sept. 4, 2012)

Order Setting Revised Sentencing Date (Sept. 4, 2012)

United States’ Sentencing Memorandum (Sept. 11, 2012)

Declaration of Dr. Keith Leffler Regarding AUO’S U.S. Volume of Commerce for Sentencing Hearing (Sept. 11, 2012) (Exhibits A, B,C and D)

Declaration of Heather S. Tewksbury in Support of United States’ Sentencing Memorandum (Sept. 11, 2012)

 

Defendant AUO’S Sentencing Memorandum, Part One: Scope and Application of 18 U.S.C. Section 3571 (Sept. 11, 2012)

Defendant AU Optronics Corporation's Sentencing Memorandum Part Two: Application of the Sentencing Guidelines; Conditional Request for Evidentiary Hearing (Sept. 11, 2012)

Declaration of Kirk C. Jenkins in Support of Defendant AU Optronics Corporation's Sentencing Memorandum Part Two: Application of the Sentencing Guidelines (Sept. 11, 2012)

Exhibit

Defendant AUO’S Sentencing Memorandum, Part Three: Application of 18 U.S.C. Sections 3553 and 3572 (Sept. 11, 2012)

Exhibit A

United States’ Reply to Defendants’ Sentencing Memoranda (Sept. 17, 2012)

Defendant AUO's Response to Government’s Sentencing Memorandum: Application of 18 U.S.C. Sections 3553 and 3572 (Sept. 17, 2012)

Exhibit C

Defendant AU Optronics Corporation’s Response to Government’s Sentencing Memorandum: Application of the Sentencing Guidelines; Conditional Request for Evidentiary Hearing (Sept. 17, 2012)

 

Defendant Hui Hsiung’s Sentencing Memorandum (Sept. 11, 2012)

Defendant Hui Hsiung’s Reply Sentencing Memorandum (Sept. 17, 2012)

Defendant Hsuan Bin Chen’s Sentencing Memorandum and Motion for Departure (Sept. 11, 2012)

Defendant Hsuan Bin Chen’s Opposition to United States’ Sentencing Memorandum (Sept. 17, 2012)

United States’ Reply to Defendants’ Sentencing Memoranda (Sept. 19, 2012)

Transcript of Proceeding (Sept. 20, 2012)

 

Judgment in a Criminal Case (Oct. 2, 2012) ( AU Corporation)
Judgment in a Criminal Case (Oct. 2, 2012) (America AU Optronics Corporation)
Judgment in a Criminal Case (Oct. 2, 2012) (Hui Hsiung)
Judgment in a Criminal Case (Oct. 2, 2012) (Hsuan Bin Chen)

Notice of Appeal (Oct. 4, 2012) (America AU Optronics)
Notice of Appeal (Oct. 30, 2012) (United States as to AU Optronics)
Notice of Appeal (Oct. 30, 2012) (United States as to Hui Hsiung)

Order Stating Reasons for Denying Defendants’ Motions for Bail Pending Appeal (Dec. 21, 2012)

Appeal

United States v. Hui Hsiung, No. 12-10492 (9th Cir. docketed Oct. 2, 2012)

Docket sheet (No. 10492 consolidated lead case) (downloaded Feb. 20, 2016)
See here for motion on bail pending appeal

Order (Dec. 21, 2012) (consolidating cases and setting briefing schedule)

Opening Brief for Defendants-Appellants AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America (Feb. 4, 2013)

Brief for Defendants-Appellants Hui Hsiung and Hsuan Bin Chen (Feb. 4, 2013)

Brief for Defendants-Appellants Hui Hsiung and Hsuan Bin Chen (Feb. 4, 2013) (Nos. 12-10492 & 12-10493)

Brief for the United States (Apr. 5, 2013) (Nos. 12-10492, 12-10493, 12-10500, 12-10514)

Reply Brief for Defendants-Appellants AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America (May 13, 2013)

Reply Brief for Defendants-Appellants Hui Hsiung and Hsuan Bin Chen (May 13, 2013)

Argued (Oct. 18, 2013)

Opinion (July 10, 2014) (reported at 758 F.3d 1074)

 

Defendants-Appellants’ AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America Petition for Panel Rehearing (Aug. 25, 2014)

Motion to File Amicus Letter Brief of the Ministry of Economic Affairs of the Republic of China in Support of Defendant AUO's Petition for Panel Rehearing (Sept. 4, 2014)

Brief of Corning Incorporated and Applied Materials, Inc. as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendants-Appellants’ Petitions for Rehearing En Banc (Sept. 4, 2014)

Hsuan Bin Chen’s and Hui Hsiung’s Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc (Aug. 25, 2014)

Response to the Petitions for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc (Oct. 10, 2014)

Order and Amended Opinion (Jan. 30, 2015) (reported at 778 F.3d 738)

Mandate (Feb. 11, 2015)

Supreme Court

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Hsiung v. United States, No. 14-1121 (U.S. filed Mar. 16, 2015)

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 20, 2016)

Brief for the United States in Opposition (May 15, 2015)

Reply Brief for Petitioners (May 22, 2015)

Petition denied (June 15, 2015)

 

Retrial and appeal of Shiu Lung (“Steven”) Leung

United States v. Shiu Lung Leung, No. 3:09-cr-00110-SI-6 (N.D. Cal. filed June 10, 2010)
The original AUO trial failed to reach a verdict on Leung. On retrial, Leung was found guilty, fined $50,000, and sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release.

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 14, 2014)

Order for Pretrial Preparation (June 4, 2012)

United States’ Trial Memorandum (Oct. 26, 2012)

United States’ Proposed Jury Instructions (Oct. 26, 2012)
Defendant Steven Leung’s Proposed Jury Instructions (Oct. 26, 2012)

United States’ Proposed Preliminary Jury Instructions (Nov. 5, 2012) (to be given before opening statements)

Neutral Statement of the Case for Voir Dire (Nov. 6, 2012)

Final Pretrial Scheduling Order (Nov. 14, 2012)

Draft Jury Instructions (Dec. 12, 2012) (prepared by court staff)

Verdict (Dec. 19, 2012)

Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Judgement of Acquittal, or in the Alternative, for New Trial (Apr. 16, 2013)

United States’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, or in the Alternative, for New Trial (Apr. 22, 2013)

Defendant’s Reply to Government’s Opposition to Motion for Acquittal and/or New Trial (Apr. 24, 2013)

United States’ Sentencing Memorandum (Apr. 19, 2013)

Defendant Steven Leung’s Sentencing Memorandum and Motion for Departure (Apr. 21, 2013)

United States’ Reply to Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum (Apr. 25, 2013)

Criminal Minutes (Apr. 30, 2013) (denying motion for acquittal or new trial; sentencing defendant to 24 months custody, three years supervised release, and a $50,000 fine)

Judgment in a Criminal Case (Apr. 30, 2013)

Order Denying Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and for a New Trial (May 2, 2013)

Defendant Steven Leung's Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (May 2, 2013)

Defendant’s Notice of Motion for Release on Bail Pending Appeal (Aug. 16, 2013)

Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Release on Bail Pending Appeal (Aug. 16, 2013)

United States’ Opposition to Motion for Release on Bail Pending Appeal (Aug. 23, 2013)

Reply in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Release on Bail Pending Appeal (Aug. 27, 2013)

Transcript (Aug. 30, 2013)

Letter from Dennis P. Riordan Re: Surrender Date as to Shiu Lung Leung (Sept. 6, 2013)

Order Clarifying Steven Leung’s Bail Conditions (Jan. 13, 2014)

 

United States v. Leung, No. 13-10242 (9th Cir. docketed May 7, 2013)

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 13, 2014)

Defendant’s Motion for Release on Bail Pending Appeal (Sept. 6, 2013)

Opposition of the United States of America to Defendant’s Motion for Release on Bail Pending Appeal (Sept. 13, 2013)

Reply in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Release on Bail Pending Appeal (Sept 20, 2013)

Order (Oct. 23, 2013) (granting motion for bail pending appeal)

Appellant’s Opening Brief (Dec. 9, 2013)

Brief for the United States of America (Feb. 12, 2014)

 

Commentary

± Rachel j. Adcox, Getting Your Best Outcome Post-AU Optronics: Pay No Attention to that Case Behind the Curtain, Antitrust, Vol. 26, No.3, Summer 2012, at 78.

Refrigerant Compressors
(2010)

Information, United States v. Panasonic Corp., No. 2:10-cr-20576 (E.D. Mich. filed Sept. 30, 2010)
Information, United States v. Embraco North Am., Inc., No. 2:10-cr-20577 (E.D. Mich. filed Sept. 30, 2010)

Docket sheet (No. 2:10-cr-20576) (downloaded Nov. 29, 2015)

Plea Agreement, United States v. Panasonic Corp., No. 2:10-cr-20576 (E.D. Mich. filed Sept. 30, 2010)
Guilty Plea Questionaire, United States v. Panasonic Corp., No. 2:10-cr-20576 (E.D. Mich. filed Nov. 18, 2010)
Judgment in a Criminal Case, United States v. Panasonic Corp., No. 2:10-cr-20576 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 23, 2010)

Docket sheet (No. 2:10-cr-20577) (downloaded Nov. 29, 2015)

Plea Agreement, United States v. Embraco North Am., Inc., No. 2:10-cr-20577 (E.D. Mich. filed Sept. 30, 2010)
Transcript of Arraignment / Plea & Sentence (Dec. 16, 2010)
Judgment in a Criminal Case, United States v. Embraco North Am., Inc., No. 2:10-cr-20577 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2011)
Guilty Plea Questionaire, United States v. Embraco North Am., Inc., No. 2:10-cr-20577 (E.D. Mich. filed Jan. 10, 2011)

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Press Release, Panasonic Corp. and Whirlpool Corp. Subsidiary Agree to Plead Guilty for Role in Price-fixing Conspiracy Involving Refrigerant Compressors (Sept. 30, 2010)

Indictment, United States v. Heinzelmann, No. 2:11-cr-20605 (E.D. Mich. returned Sept. 27, 2011)

Docket sheet (No. 2:11-cr-20605) (downloaded Nov. 29, 2015)

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Press Release, Former Executives from Panasonic Corp., Whirlpool Corp. Subsidiary and Tecumseh Products Co. Subsidiary Indicted in Compressor Price-Fixing Conspiracy (Sept. 27, 2011)

Information, United States v. Danfoss Flensburg GmbH, No. 2:11-cr-20622 (E.D. Mich. filed Oct. 4, 2011)

Docket sheet (No. 2:11-cr-20622) (downloaded Nov. 29, 2015)

Plea Agreement, United States v. Danfoss Flensburg GmbH, No. 2:11-cr-20622 (E.D. Mich. filed Oct. 4, 2011)
Guilty Plea Questionaire, United States v. Danfoss Flensburg GmbH, No. 2:11-cr-20622 (E.D. Mich. filed Dec. 8, 2011)
Judgment in a Criminal Case, United States v. Danfoss Flensburg GmbH, No. 2:11-cr-20622 (E.D. Mich. filed Dec. 19, 2011)

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Press Release, Danfoss Group Subsidiary Agrees to Plead Guilty for Role in Price-Fixing Conspiracy Involving Refrigerant Compressors (Oct. 4, 2011)

 

Follow-on private actions

Complaint, General Electric Corp. v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 3-13-cv-213-H (W.D. Ky. filed Feb. 15, 2013)

Docket sheet (No. 3-13-cv-213-H) (downloaded Nov. 29, 2015)

Order Granting Unopposed Motion to Transfer, In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2042 (J.P.M.L. June 14, 2013)

Docket sheet (E.D. Mich. No. 2:09-md-02042) (downloaded Nov. 29, 2015)

Motion by Defendants Danfoss Flensburg GMBH and Danfoss LLC to Dismiss the Complaint, In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litig.,No. 2:09-md-02042, (E.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2014)

Opposition to Motion by Defendants Danfoss Flensburg GMBH and Danfloss LLC to Dismiss the Complaint (Apr. 8, 2014)

Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Danfoss Flensburg GMBH's and Danfoss LLC's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint of General Electric Company (Apr. 30, 2014)

Surreply Brief in Support of GE’s Opposition to Motion by Defendants Danfoss Flensburg GMBH and Danfoss LLC to Dismiss the Complaint (June 26, 2014)

Response to General Electric Company’s Surreply by Defendants Danfoss Flensburg GMBH and Danfoss LLC (Sept. 6, 2014)

Opinion & Order (Mar. 13, 2015) (reported at 92 F .Supp. 3d 652)

Iowa Ready-Mixed concrete cartel: United States v. Stewart

Information, United States v. Stewart, No. CR-10-4028 (N.D. Iowa filed May 6, 2010)
NB: Coconspirator with Steven VandeBrake.

Docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 10, 2012)

Plea agreement (May 25, 2010)

Report and Recommendation Concerning Plea of Guilty (May 25, 2010) (magistrate judge's report)

Defendant Kent Stewart's Objections Presentence Investigation Report (Nov. 7, 2010)

Motion of Defendant Kent Robert Stewart for the Court to Depart or Vary Downward from the Advisory United Stated Sentencing Guidelines Range (Nov. 11, 2010)

Defendant Kent Stewart's Sentencing Memorandum and Brief in Support of Motion for Downward Departure or Variance from Kent Robert Stewart Sentencing Guidelines (Nov. 24, 2010)

Consolidated Sentencing Memorandum and Response to Defendant Kent Robert Stewart’s “Motion For Departure” (Nov. 24, 2010)

Response to Defendant Kent Robert Stewart’s Sentencing Memorandum and Brief in Support of Motion for Downward Departure or Variance from Sentencing Guidelines (Dec. 1, 2010)

Defendant Kent Stewart's Response to Government's Sentencing Memorandum and Brief and Defendant's Motion for Downward Departure (Dec. 1, 2010)

Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding Sentencing (Feb. 8, 2011)

Judgment in a Criminal Case (Feb. 10, 2011)

Amended Judgment in a Criminal Case (Feb. 16, 2011) (amending judgment to provide for restitution to Tri-Zack Contractor. See Opinion 104-05).

DRAM cartel:
United States v. Swanson

Indictment, United States v. Swanson, No. CR-06-00692 PJH (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 18, 2006)

Gary Swanson was the "last man standing" after all other companies and individuals indicted in the DRAM investigation pleaded guilty. After seven days of deliberation, on March 6, 2008, Swanson's trial ended in a hung jury, with 10 of the jurors in favor of acquittal. Juror interviews indicated that none of them had found the DOJ's key witness, Micron's Michael Sadler, to be credible. Two weeks later, the DOJ announced that it would not retry the case. According to Swanson's attorney, the government made a final pretrial offer to Swanson of 15 months incarceration.

The arbs followed the case very closely, and the notes on the trial make interesting reading. See ± Investor Village.

Docket sheet (downloaded Jan. 30, 2010)

Final Pretrial Order (Nov. 16, 2007)
Addendum to Final Pretrial Order (Nov. 30, 2007)

Government's Renewed Motion to Exclude Testimony by Defendant's Experts Hausman and Krone (Dec. 4, 2007) (Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
Defendant's Opposition to Government's Renewed Motion to Exclude Testimony by Defendant's Expert Hausman and Krone (Dec. 10, 2007)

Second Addendum to Final Pretrial Order (Dec. 18, 2007)

Objections to Government's Proposed Coconspirator Evidence (Dec. 28, 2007) (attachment)

Third Addendum to Final Pretrial Order (Jan. 22, 2008)

Memorandum in Support of Instruction for Multiple Conspiracies (Feb. 20, 2008) (attachment)
Opposition of United States to Multiple Conspiracy Instruction (Feb. 21, 2008)

Exhibit and witness list (Mar. 6, 2008)
Jury instructions (Mar. 10, 2008)
Order dismissing indictment (Mar. 21, 2008)

Commentary

± Dan Levine, Hung Jury in Chip Price-Fixing Case, The Recorder, Mar. 7, 2008
± Dan Levine, Feds Won't Retry Price-Fixing Case, The Recorder, Mar. 20, 2008
± Karen Gullo & David Dietz, Busting the Chip Cartel, Bloomberg. com, June 2008
± Robert H. Bunzel & Howard Miller, Defending “The Last Man Standing”: Trench Lessons from the 2008 Criminal Antitrust Trial United States v. Swanson, Antitrust Source, June 2008, at 1.
± J. Eric Bartko & Robert Bunzel, Discovery Lessons, The Recorder, Aug. 19, 2009
± J. Eric Bartko, Trial Technology Saves Last Man Standing, law.com, Sept. 19, 2009

Roger G. Noll, The DRAM Antitrust Litigation (2008), in The Antitrust Revolution 246 (John E. Kwoka, Jr. & Lawrence J. White eds., 6th ed. 2014).

Therm-All

United States v. Therm-All, Inc., No. 02-20843 (5th Cir. July 14, 2004) (replacement opinion following denial of rehearing en banc) (reported at 373 F.3d 625)

Southern District of Texas

Indictment, United States v. Robert L. Smigel, Therm-All, Inc., Tula D. Thompson, & Supreme Insulation, Inc., No. CR-H-00-362 (S.D. Tex. filed May 31, 2000) (DOJ news release)

Note: The jury acquitted Smigel (Therm-All) and Thompson (Supreme), but found Therm-All and Supreme guilty.

± DOJ web page

Related indictments

Information, United States v. Huber Wally Rhodes, Jr., No. CR-H-96-119 (S.D. Tex. filed June 25, 1996) (Mizell Bros. Co. former National Sales Manager and Vice-President of Sales—agreed to sentence of 4 months incarceration in plea agreement)
Indictment, United States v. Hiplax Int'l Corp. d/b/a Brite Insulation, Cr. No. H-96-201 (S.D. Tex. filed Sept. 30, 1996) (agreed to $100,000 fine in plea agreement)
Information, United States v. Jerrold Warren Killingsworth, Cr. No. H-96-200 (S.D. Tex. filed Sept. 30, 1996) (Hiplax Vice-President of Sales)
Information, United States v. Yun Lung Yueh a/k/a Peter Yueh, Cr. No. CR96-H-213 (S.D. Tex. filed Oct. 16, 1996) (Hiplax Executive Vice-President)
Indictment, United States v. Mark Albert Maloof, Cr. No. H-97-93 (S.D. Tex. filed May 15, 1997) (regional sales manager for Bay Industries, Inc.) (DOJ news release) (convicted at trial; sentenced to 30 months incarceration, $30,000 fine) (± DOJ web page) (± jury instructions)
Indictment, United States v. Danny Two- Sheng Fong, No. H-98-430 (S.D. Tex. filed Oct. 21, 1998) (president of Hiplax) (DOJ news release) (acquitted at trial)
Information, United States v. Mizell Bros., Co., Cr. No.: 00-24 (S.D. Tex. filed Jan. 12, 2000) (DOJ news release)
Information, United States v. Bay Indus. Inc., No. CR-H-00-361 (S.D. Tex. filed May 31, 2000)

Original Fifth Circuit opinion

Docket sheet (downloaded Jan. 22, 2012)

Brief for Appellant Therm-All, Inc. (Apr. 4, 2003)

Brief for Appellant Supreme Installation, Inc. (Apr. 7, 2003) (not available on PACER)

Brief for the Appellee United States of America (June 6, 2003)

Reply Brief for Appellant Therm-All, Inc. (July 7, 2003) (not available on PACER)

Reply Brief for Appellant Supreme Insulation, Inc. (July 8, 2003)

Opinion, United States v. Therm-All, Inc., No. 02-20843 (5th Cir. Dec. 3, 2003)

Replacement Fifth Circuit opinion

Petition of the United States of America for Rehearing En Banc (Jan. 12, 2004)

Motion for Leave to File a Reply and Reply of the US to Appellants' Responses to Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Feb. 26, 2004)

Opinion, United States v. Therm-All, Inc., No. 02-20843 (5th Cir. July 14, 2004) (replacement opinion following denial of rehearing en banc) (reported at 373 F.3d 625)

Judgment (June 14, 2004)

Mandate issued (June 15, 2004)

 

2. Early Foundations

4. Private cause of action