United States: Cartels


In Summary

This chapter summarises recent trends and priorities of the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division in investigating and pursuing criminal cartel enforcement actions. The article also discusses the Division’s view on its leniency programme and provides compliance programme guidance. Finally, this chapter summarises recent case developments in US criminal cartel enforcement cases.


Discussion points

  • Enforcement trends have levelled, with signs of increased enforcement on the horizon
  • Covid-19 does not appear to have materially slowed ongoing investigations or enforcement, and may spur future investigations as the pandemic upended the global economy
  • DOJ’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force is expanding and spurred several investigations and prosecutions
  • DOJ continues its efforts to persuade practitioners of the benefits of amnesty over deferred prosecution agreements
  • Corporate compliance programmes have room for improvement, according to DOJ

Referenced in this article

  • Enforcement trends
  • DOJ Procurement Collusion Strike Force
  • Leniency programme
  • Compliance Program Guidance
  • Recent case developments

Introduction

The covid-19 pandemic brought forward a new series of unprecedented challenges for business and governments. Despite these challenges, including restrictions on travel and in-person meetings, there was no significant drop-off in criminal enforcement by the Antitrust Division. The number of criminal antitrust enforcement actions remained on par with the preceding three years, and fines collected for the last four years have continued to trend upward year-over-year. The Division has also seen an increase in activity through its Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF), which focuses on bid rigging and other collusive conduct related to government contracts. This past year led to the first criminal enforcement actions against alleged “no-poach” agreements in the employment field. Finally, the Division provided more guidance on the benefits of leniency over deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) and addressed the importance of a robust compliance programme.

This past year has also brought in a new administration in The White House. At the time of writing, President Biden had announced his intention to nominate Jonathan Karl as Assistant Attorney General to head up the Antitrust Division. This nomination is another indicator that the Division is likely to be more aggressive on all fronts, including criminal antitrust enforcement.

Enforcement trends

Cartel enforcement levels remain low relative to years prior to 2017, but the total criminal fines collected by the Division are continuing a recent upward trend. In fiscal year 2020, the number of criminal cases filed stood at 20 – in-line with the rolling four-year average of 22 cases per year.[1] Total fines and penalties have continued to increase over the same period. The Division collected US$67 million in fines in 2017. That number more than doubled to US$172 million in 2018, before doubling again in 2019 to US$365 million.[2] This past year, the Division saw another increase in fines and penalties, collecting US$529 million.[3] While this is still well below the record penalties collected between 2010 and 2016, a trend of increased enforcement has emerged.[4] Despite the increase, the DOJ has not announced investigations at a scale comparable to those that drove enforcement in the first half of the 2010s, such as the Auto Parts investigation.

Several years ago, there were questions about whether the Division was unfairly targeting foreign companies for its cartel investigations. But as investigations of foreign manufacturing companies have drawn to a close, there has been a corresponding decrease in the number of Division cases against non-US entities.[5] Many of the recent investigations and cases brought by the Division have focused on US companies and nationals, including the investigations and prosecutions in the broiler chicken, packaged tuna industries and generic drug industries.

Shortly before the covid-19 pandemic, Division officials announced that there were several ongoing investigations that would lead to a flurry of activity later in the year. True to that warning, the Division filed several employment-related ‘no-poach’ cases in late 2020 and early 2021. These are the first no-poach cases brought by the Division since the DOJ-FTC no-poach guidance for human resources was issued in October 2016. Division officials have suggested more criminal cases focusing on the labour market are likely in the coming year.[6]

Since cartel investigations can take years from beginning to end, a potential increase in case filings and corporate penalties related to covid-19 could also be coming in the years ahead. Increased criminal enforcement under the Biden Administration is anticipated.

Policy developments

The past year has led to the maturing of several significant prior policy programmes, which appear to reflect the Division’s efforts to reinvigorate its enforcement programme.

Procurement Collusion Strike Force

As discussed in last year’s update, the DOJ created a Procurement Collusion Strike Force in late 2019. The PCSF’s mission is to provide greater coordination, more financial resources, and a more aggressive approach to recover penalties and damages against companies that engage in antitrust crimes, such as bid-rigging conspiracies, in the US government procurement and grant funding process.[7] The PCSF was designed to be proactive in launching investigations into potential bid-rigging schemes to deter and detect criminal conduct.[8]

A number of Division cases have come out of the PCSF in the past year, as detailed below. According to former Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim, as of mid-September 2020, the PCSF had nearly two dozen active grand jury investigations into potential criminal antitrust violations.[9] Delrahim also reported that more than 5,500 employees from roughly 500 state and local agencies have been trained for the PCSF to help eliminate bid-rigging on government contracts.[10]

Reaffirming the Division’s commitment to the leniency programme

Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Powers again highlighted to practitioners during a February virtual ABA panel the benefits of amnesty compared to benefits derived from a DPA. Acting AAG Powers characterised amnesty as a ‘significantly better deal’.[11] ‘[T]o put it another way, a deferred prosecution agreement is much closer to a guilty plea than it is to leniency,’ explained Powers.[12]

Reaffirming the benefits of the amnesty programme has been a running theme and challenge for the Division since its July 2019 policy announcement that it would consider granting DPAs in some cases. There is speculation across the bar that DOJ’s increased use of DPAs has been a factor in the decline of amnesty applications.

Acting AAG Powers continues to push back on the idea that the possible availability of a DPA should change the analysis for practitioners advising clients whether to seek amnesty. Powers has urged that the DPAs the Division has issued since the policy change announcement would have been issued even if no policy change had been announced.[13] Powers has stressed that a DPA still requires companies to comply with ‘standard terms’ typically found in the Division’s plea agreements, including paying a monetary penalty, agreeing to cooperate with the DOJ investigation, compensating victims, enhancing the company’s antitrust compliance programme, and hiring a monitor to ensure compliance with the DPA.[14] Moreover, a company that qualifies for a DPA loses key benefits available to a successful amnesty applicant, including protecting its employees from prosecution, and reducing damages in civil litigations that typically follows a DOJ investigation.[15]

The civil-side benefits to a successful amnesty applicant can be significant. Under the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act (ACPERA), in exchange for cooperation, a successful amnesty applicant can avoid treble damages and joint and several liability normally available against antitrust defendants. ACPERA received permanent reauthorisation in 2020. Previously, the legislation had a sunset provision that required regular Congressional reauthorisation (which had been granted twice).[16] The new reauthorisation by Congress, which was signed by President Trump, does not include a sunset provision – providing the Division and practitioners greater certain moving forward.[17]

Corporate compliance

Last year, DOJ released revised guidance on the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (the Compliance Program Guidance).[18] The Compliance Program Guidance provides companies with general principles and factors to consider when designing, implementing, and updating their compliance policies and procedures.[19] It also provides a useful baseline for companies seeking to avoid or mitigate prosecution pursuant to the DOJ’s ‘Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations’ and the US Sentencing Guidelines, both of which require DOJ prosecutors to consider a company’s compliance programme in making prosecution decisions.[20]

The revised guidance is geared towards measuring whether a company itself evaluates and tracks its compliance programme.[21] Earlier this year, Acting AAG Powers commented that the Division has yet to find a ‘gold standard’ corporate compliance programme. ‘We’re going to try to be as transparent as we can once we come across that program that we say, ‘okay this is really the gold standard that deserves a [deferred prosecution agreement].’[22] Powers also added a reminder that even a gold standard compliance programme is only one of 10 factors the Division considers when making a charging decision.

Recent case developments

The Division brings its first no-poach criminal charges

After years of warnings that the Division was actively investigating ‘no-poach’ agreements, the Division finally filed criminal charges related to no-poach agreements in the past year. In December 2020, the former owner of a physical therapist staffing company was indicted for conspiracy to supress wages paid to physical therapists and physical therapist assistants from March to August 2017.[23] The indictment reveals that before DOJ became involved in the case, the FTC had begun an investigation into the same conduct. Along with the no-poach allegations, DOJ further alleges that the defendant obstructed the FTC’s investigation by making misleading and false statements and withholding or concealing information in response to document requests and during an investigational hearing.[24] An alleged co-conspirator was indicted for the same conduct in April 2021.[25] At the time of this writing motions to dismiss the indictments were pending with the court.[26]

In another case, DOJ indicted a healthcare staffing company and one of its former managers for conspiring to allocate school nurses and suppress the wages of those nurses.[27] DOJ alleged that from October 2016 to December 2017, the company ‘agreed not to recruit or hire nurses staffed by their respective competitor’ and ‘to refrain from raising the wages of those nurses’.[28] Trial is set for February 2022.[29]

Finally, in January of this year, DOJ indicted a healthcare firm for entering into agreements ‘to allocate high-level employees by agreeing not to solicit their respective senior-level employees’.[30] The conspiracy is alleged to have run from May 2010 to July 2017, and involved alleged conspirators in Texas and Colorado.[31] A motion to dismiss is pending with the court. Trial is set for May 2022.[32]

Procurement Collusion Strike Force

This past year has been an active year for the PCSF. In October 2020, Contech Engineered Solutions, a North Carolina engineering firm, and one of its former executives were indicted for bid rigging and fraud.[33] The Division alleged anticompetitive and fraudulent conduct in their role as a contractor for the North Carolina Department of Transportation.[34] DOJ alleged that the firm and an individual defendant conspired to rig bids by ‘falsely [holding the bids] out to be competitive and free of collusion’.[35] The firm pled guilty, agreeing to pay a US$7 million fine and US$1.5 million in restitution.[36] A trial date has not been set in the case against the individual defendant.[37]

In a separate investigation, two Belgian firms and several of their executives were indicted for conspiring to fix prices and rig bids on US Department of Defense and NATO contracts to provide security services to military buildings in Belgium.[38] One of the firms, G4S Secure Solution NV, pled guilty and admitted to conspiring to ‘allocate security services contracts in Belgium . . . and to determine the prices at which contract would be bid’. G4S agreed to pay a US$15 million fine to resolve the charges.[39] A second Belgian firm, Seris Security NV, and three of its former executives have been indicted under the same alleged scheme.[40] The indictment was filed 29 June 2021.

Finally, the government indicted Cajan Welding & Rentals, Ltd and Johnny Guillory. According to the Division, from 2002 to 2016, Cajan worked as a subcontractor on the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve and provided equipment and services.[41] During that time, the government alleges Cajan received non-public pricing and cost estimates from Guillory, an employee of the prime contractor responsible for managing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.[42] This non-public information allowed Cajan to capture US$15 million in subcontracts.[43] Cajan plead guilty and paid a US$400,000 fine.[44] Guillory administered and oversaw subcontracts for his employer and is alleged to have had personal and financial relationships with Cajan and its now-deceased owner.[45] Guillory is scheduled to go to trial in January 2022 for conspiracy to defraud the United States, violation of the Procurement Integrity Act, and for making false statements to federal agents.[46]

Packaged Seafood

The Division has continued its prosecutions in the Packaged Seafood case. This alleged price-fixing scheme involved the sale of canned tuna between 2010 and 2013 and became public in 2015, as part of the Division’s review of an ill-fated bid by Thai Union Group to acquire Bumble Bee Foods LLC.[47] DOJ has secured a conviction and several guilty pleas from both individuals and corporate defendants. Corporate fines totalling US$125 million were imposed against StarKist and Bumble Bee as part of their guilty pleas.[48]

Back in 2019, DOJ obtained a conviction at trial against former Bumble Bee CEO Chris Lischewski.[49] The Court later sentenced him to 40 months in prison and a US$100,000 fine.[50] Earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit unanimously upheld Lischewski’s conviction, noting the ‘overwhelming’ evidence of his participation in ‘a scheme to fix prices in the canned tuna market’.[51]

DOJ previously obtained guilty pleas from two Bumble Bee executives and one StarKist executive involved in the price-fixing scheme. Each individual was sentenced earlier this year. Former Bumble Bee senior vice presidents Kenneth Worsham and Walter Scott Cameron received sentences that included community service, three years of probation, and US$25,000 fines.[52] Worsham and Cameron were cooperating witnesses during the Lischewski trial.[53] Recognising the value of their cooperation, DOJ recommend a downward departure from the US Sentencing Guidelines for each defendant.[54] While the court noted that Worsham and Cameron hurt ‘economically vulnerable’ consumers and could have stopped the price-fixing scheme, the court accepted DOJ’s sentencing recommendation.[55] Stephen Hodge, the StarKist executive who pled guilty and also testified against Lischewski received a sentence of three years’ probation, six months home confinement and a US$25,000 fine.[56] The court again accepted DOJ’s recommendation for a downward departure.[57]

US chicken price-fixing and bid rigging

DOJ continues to investigate alleged price-fixing and bid rigging in the broiler chicken industry.[58] In February 2021, Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation pled guilty to a conspiracy to ‘supress and eliminat[e] competition for the sales of broiler chicken products’ from 2012 through 2017. The allegations included rigging bids or fixing prices in contracts for chicken sold to Kentucky Fried Chicken.[59] DOJ alleged that Pilgrim’s affected sales totalled at least US$361 million during the relevant years.[60] Pilgrim’s agreed to pay a US$107 million fine.[61] One small chicken supplier, Claxton Poultry Farms, has also been indicted for similar conduct but has denied any wrongdoing.[62]

The Division’s investigation has also led to the indictment of ten executives and employees of broiler chicken suppliers.[63] These individuals include board members, presidents, chief executive officers, vice presidents, sales executives, directors, and managers at various chicken suppliers, including Pilgrim’s, Claxton, Tyson Foods and Koch Foods.[64] The charged defendants are scheduled to go to trial in October 2021.[65]

Generic pharmaceuticals

The Division’s long-running investigation into the generic pharmaceutical industry continues. Last year, Apotex Corp agreed to a DPA related to price-fixing charges for a generic drug used to control cholesterol.[66] As part of the DPA, Apotex agreed to a US$24.1 million fine and to cooperate with DOJ’s investigation.[67] Other generic manufacturers, including Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc and Sanzoz, Inc, have also entered into DPAs for alleged price fixing, bid rigging and customer allocation. Taro agreed to pay a US$205.7 million fine[68] and Sandoz agreed to pay a US$195 million fine. Facing similar allegations, Rising Pharmaceuticals[69] and Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc[70] have also entered DPAs, and paid US$3 million and US$7 million fines, respectively.

Two generic drug manufacturers – Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc and Teva Pharmaceuticals – have denied the price-fixing conspiracy allegations and are set for trial in early 2022.[71] DOJ alleges that from May 2013 to December 2015, Glenmark and Teva, along with Apotex, conspired to raise prices for a generic drug used to control cholesterol.[72] DOJ has also alleged two other conspiracies in the same indictment. First, from May 2013 to December 2015. Among others, Teva and Taro are alleged to have ‘entered into and engaged in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by agreeing to allocate customers and rig bids for, and stabilise, maintain and fix prices’ for a number of generic drugs.[73] A similar allegation for the same time period was alleged between Teva and Sandoz.[74]

The Division has also pursued and successfully prosecuted three individual defendants, each of whom pled guilty to participating in various conspiracies to fix prices in the industry from 2013 to 2015.[75] These individuals included a former executive with Sandoz[76] and two former executives at Heritage.[77] A former Taro executive, Ara Aprahamian, has denied allegations that he conspired to increase prices and allocate customers for generic drugs used to treat arthritis, seizures, pain, skin conditions, and blood clots from 2013 to 2015.[78] At the time of publication, a trial date had not been set.[79]

FX spot market investigation

In 2019, DOJ secured the conviction of Akshay Aiyer, a former executive director of a multinational bank, for his alleged participation in an antitrust conspiracy to manipulate prices for emerging market currencies in the global foreign exchange (FX) market.[80] The jury found Aiyer and his co-conspirators guilty of coordinating trades in foreign exchange (FX) spot markets in certain currencies and agreeing to withhold bids or offers to manipulate the exchange rates to increase profits.[81]

This past year, Aiyer was sentenced to eight months in person and fined US$150,000 – far below the 37- to 46-month prison term sought by the government.[82] Aiyer has since appealed his conviction.[83] Central to the appeal is whether the trial court was correct in applying the per se rule and thus excluding most of the defence’s evidence.[84] Aiyar remains out on bail pending appeal.[85]

As part of the Division’s FX spot market investigation, five companies and six individuals were also charged.[86] Those companies all pled guilty and paid roughly US$2.6 billion in criminal fines.[87] Several individuals also pled guilty. Christopher Cummins admitted to conspiring with Aiyer and later cooperated with DOJ.[88] He received no prison time, 120 hours of community service and was ordered to pay a $20,000 fine.[89] Jason Katz admitted to participating in the same conspiracy and cooperated with the government’s investigation. Katz received no prison time, but was sentenced to 120 hours of community service and ordered to pay a US$50,000 fine.[90] Both individuals received significant benefit from their cooperation and testimony in the Aiyer trial. Three remaining individual defendants charged in this alleged conspiracy were all previously acquitted.[91]

* The authors would like to thank UVA law student Jake Kotler for his helpful research in preparing this article.


Notes

[1] See CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT TRENDS CHART, DOJ Trends Charts Through Fiscal Year 2019, www.justice.gov/atr/criminal-enforcement-fine-and-jail-charts (last updated 23 Nov. 2020).

[2] id.

[3] id.

[4] id.

[5] Victoria Turner, ‘DOJ may look at treatment of corporate compliance programs in criminal prosecution programs by year-end — Delrahim’, PaRR (10 June 2020), https://app.parr-global.com/intelligence/view/prime-3037232?utm_source=Notifications&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Alert&utm_term=5c5c427607cb51002a1cd943.

[6] Max Filion, ‘US DOJ anticipates more criminal antitrust cases focusing on labor markets, senior official says’, MLex (24 March 2021), https://content.mlex.com/#/content/1274538.

[7] id.

[8] Makan Delrahim, Assistant Attorney General, Remarks at the Procurement Collusion Strike Force Press Conference, DOJ (5 Nov 2019), www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-makan-delrahim-delivers-remarks-procurement-collusion-strike.

[9] Max Filion, US DOJ’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force has opened nearly two dozen criminal antitrust probes, Delrahim says, MLex (24 March 2021), https://content.mlex.com/#/content/1223801.

[10] id.

[11] Max Filion, ‘Leniency still a 'significantly better deal' than deferred prosecution agreements with US DOJ, Powers says’, MLex (12 Feb. 2021), https://content.mlex.com/#/content/1264840.

[12] id.

[13] id.

[14] id.

[15] id.

[16] Press Release, ‘Department Of Justice Applauds President Trump’s Authorization Of The Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement And Reform Permanent Extension Act’, (1 Oct. 2020) https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-applauds-president-trump-s-authorization-antitrust-criminal-penalty.

[17] id.

[18] Press Release, ‘Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs’, DOJ, www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/page/file/937501/download.

[19] id.

[20] id.

[21] id.

[22] Max Filion, ‘DOJ still on lookout for ‘gold standard’ compliance program, Powers says’, MLex (26 Jan. 2021), https://content.mlex.com/#/content/1259403.

[23] Press Release, Former Owner of Health Care Staffing Company Indicted for Wage Fixing, DOJ (10 Dec 2020), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-owner-health-care-staffing-company-indicted-wage-fixing.

[24] id.; Indictment, United States v Neeraj Jindal, 4:20-cr-00358 (E.D. Tex. 9 Dec 2020), Indictment (justice.gov).

[25] Press Release, Second Individual Charged with Fixing Wages for Health Care Workers and Obstructing FTC Investigation, DOJ (19 April 2021), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/second-individual-charged-fixing-wages-health-care-workers-and-obstructing-ftc-investigation.

[26] Mot. to Dismiss Count One of Superseding Indictment, United States v Neeraj Jindal, 4:20-cr-00358 ECF 36 (E.D. Tex. 25 May 2021); Mot. to Dismiss Superseding Indictment, United States v Neeraj Jindal, 4:20-cr-00358, ECF 45 (E.D. Tex. 18 June 2021)

[27] Press Release, Health Care Staffing Company and Executive Indicted for Colluding to Suppress Wages of School Nurses, DOJ (30 Mar 2021), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/health-care-staffing-company-and-executive-indicted-colluding-suppress-wages-school-nurses.

[28] id.

[29] Order to Continue, USA v Hee et al, No. 2:21-cr-00098, ECF 32 (D. Nev. 26 May 2021).

[30] Press Release, ‘Health Care Company Indicted for Labor Market Collusion’, DOJ (7 Jan. 2021), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/health-care-company-indicted-labor-market-collusion.

[31] id.

[32] Mot. to Dismiss, United States v Surgical Care Affiliates LLC et al, No. 3:21-cr-00011, ECF 38 (N.D. Tex. 3 Mar. 2021); Order to Continue, United States v Surgical Care Affiliates LLC et al., No. 3:21-cr-00011, ECF 47 (N.D. Tex. 3 Mar. 2021).

[33] Press Release, Engineering Firm And Its Former Executive Indicted On Antitrust And Fraud Charges, DOJ (23 Oct 2020), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/engineering-firm-and-its-former-executive-indicted-antitrust-and-fraud-charges.

[34] id.

[35] id.

[36] id.

[37] Order, United States v Brewbaker et al, No. 5:20-cr-00481, ECF 109 (E.D.N.C. 3 June 2021).

[38] Daniel Seiden, ‘Belgian Firm Seris Allegedly Rigged Defense Contract Bids’, Bloomberg Law (30 June 2021), https://www.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberglawnews/white-collar-and-criminal-law/X7TKSGM4000000.

[39] Press Release, ‘Belgian Security Services Firm Agrees to Plead Guilty to Criminal Antitrust Conspiracy Affecting Department of Defense Procurement’, DOJ (25 June 2021), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/belgian-security-services-firm-agrees-plead-guilty-criminal-antitrust-conspiracy-affecting.

[40] Press Release, ‘Belgian Security Services Company and Three Former Executives Indicted for Bid Rigging on US Department of Defense Contracts’, DOJ (30 June 2021), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/belgian-security-services-company-and-three-former-executives-indicted-bid-rigging-us.

[41] Antitrust Division Spring Update 2021, ‘Investigation Into Procurement Irregularities at the Department of Energy’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve Results In Guilty Plea and Indictment’, DOJ (24 Mar 2021), https://www.justice.gov/atr/division-operations/division-update-spring-2021/investigation-procurement-irregularities-department-energy-strategic-petroleum-reserve-results.

[42] id.

[43] id.

[44] Press Release, ‘Louisiana Company Sentenced For Role in Conspiracy to Defraud the Government and Violate the Procurement Integrity Act’, DOJ (15 Dec 2020), https://www.justice.gov/usao-edla/pr/louisiana-company-sentenced-role-conspiracy-defraud-government-and-violate-procurement.

[45] Indictment, USA v Guillory, No. 2:21-cr-00018, ECF 1 (E.D. La. Feb 25, 2021).

[46] id.

[47] Hannah Albarazi, ‘Fate Of Ex-Bumble Bee Tuna “Big Fish” Goes To Calif. Jury’, Law360 (2 Dec 2019), www.law360.com/articles/1224488/fate-of-ex-bumble-bee-tuna-big-fish-goes-to-calif-jury.

[48] id.

[49] Hannah Albarazi, ‘Ex-Bumble Bee CEO Says He “Had No Idea” About Price-Fixing’, Law360 (22 Nov 2019), www.law360.com/articles/1222750/ex-bumble-bee-ceo-says-he-had-no-idea-about-price-fixing; Anne Cullen, ‘Ex-Bumble Bee CEO Looks To Avoid Jail Amid COVID-19’, Law360 (14 May 2020), www.law360.com/articles/1273763/ex-bumble-bee-ceo-looks-to-avoid-jail-amid-covid-19.

[50] Malathi Nayak, ‘Ex-Bumble Bee CEO Gets Prison Term, a Rarity in Antitrust (1)’, Bloomberg News (16 June 2020), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/mergers-and-antitrust/a-rare-big-fish-gets-prison-for-price-fixing-ex-bumble-bee-ceo.

[51] Mike Scarcella, ‘Former Bumble Bee CEO loses appeal of price-fixing conviction’, Reuters (7 July 2021), https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/former-bumble-bee-ceo-loses-appeal-price-fixing-conviction-2021-07-07/.

[52] Hannah Albarazi, ‘No Prison For Ex-Bumble Bee VPs Involved In Price-Fixing’, Law360 (28 April 2021), https://www.law360.com/articles/1379634/no-prison-for-ex-bumble-bee-vps-involved-in-price-fixing.

[53] id.

[54] id.

[55] id.

[56] Cliff White, ‘“I just did the job” – StarKist’s Stephen Hodge explains role in price-fixing scheme’, SeafoodSource (22 January 2021), https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/supply-trade/-i-just-did-the-job-starkist-s-stephen-hodge-explains-role-in-price-fixing-scheme.

[57] Minute Entry, United States v Hodge, No. 3:17-cr-00297, ECF 50 (N.D. Cal. Jan 13, 2021); United States’ Sentencing Memo. and Mot. for Downward Departure, United States v Hodge, No. 3:17-cr-00297, ECF 47 (N.D. Cal. Dec 23, 2020).

[58] Press Release, ‘One of the Nation’s Largest Chicken Producers Pleads Guilty to Price Fixing and is Sentenced to a $107 Million Criminal Fine’, DOJ (23 Feb 2021), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/one-nation-s-largest-chicken-producers-pleads-guilty-price-fixing-and-sentenced-107-million.

[59] id.; Plea Agreement, p.4, United States v Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 1:20-cr-00330, ECF 58 (D. Colo. 23 February 2021), https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1369896/download.

[60] Plea Agreement, n. 14.

[61] id. at n. 14.

[62] id. at n. 15; Bryan Koenig, ‘DOJ Expands Poultry Probe With 2nd Corp. Indictment’, Law360 (20 May 2021), https://www.law360.com/articles/1386661/doj-expands-poultry-probe-with-2nd-corp-indictment.

[63] Press Release, ‘Senior Executives at Major Chicken Producers Indicted on Antitrust Charges’, DOJ (3 June 2020), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/senior-executives-major-chicken-producers-indicted-antitrust-charges; Press Release, ‘Six Additional Individuals Indicted On Antitrust Charges In Ongoing Broiler Chicken Investigation’, DOJ (7 Oct 2020), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/six-additional-individuals-indicted-antitrust-charges-ongoing-broiler-chicken-investigation.

[64] id.; Koenig, DOJ Expands, n. 18.

[65] Bryan Koenig, ‘Poultry Execs Can't Get More Info From Prosecutors’, Law360 (3 May 2021), https://www.law360.com/articles/1380870; Order, Docket No. 264, United States v.Jayson Penn, et al, 1:20-cr-00152 (D. Colo. 20 May 2021).

[66] Press Release, ‘Generic Pharmaceutical Company Admits to Fixing Price of Widely Used Cholesterol Medication’, DOJ (7 May 2020), www.justice.gov/opa/pr/generic-pharmaceutical-company-admits-fixing-price-widely-used-cholesterol-medication.

[67] id.

[68] Antitrust Division Spring Update 2021, ‘Generic Drugs Investigation Targets Anticompetitive Schemes’, DOJ (24 Mar 2021), https://www.justice.gov/atr/division-operations/division-update-spring-2021/generic-drugs-investigation-targets-anticompetitive-schemes; ‘Antitrust Division Spring Update 2021’, Generic Drugs, DOJ (23 June 2020), https://www.justice.gov/atr/division-operations/antitrust-division-update-2020/generic-drugs.

[69] Press Release, ‘Second Pharmaceutical Company Admits to Price Fixing, Resolves Related False Claims Act Violations', DOJ (3 Dec 2019), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/second-pharmaceutical-company-admits-price-fixing-resolves-related-false-claims-act.

[70] Press Release, ‘Pharmaceutical Company Admits to Price Fixing in Violation of Antitrust Law, Resolves Related False Claims Act Violations’, DOJ (31 May 2019), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/pharmaceutical-company-admits-price-fixing-violation-antitrust-law-resolves-related-false.

[71] Bryan Koenig, ‘Glenmark, Teva In No Rush For January 2022 Criminal Trial’, Law360 (14 June 2021), https://www.law360.com/articles/1393241/glenmark-teva-in-no-rush-for-january-2022-criminal-trial.

[72] Second Superseding Indictment at pp. 6-7, United States v Teva Pharmaceuticals Inc, et al, No. 2:20-cr-00200-RBS, ECF 28 (25 Aug. 2020), https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/1316996/download.

[73] id. at pp. 9–12, footnote 44.

[74] id. at pp. 15–17, footnote 44.

[75] Press Release, ‘Generic Drug Executive Indicted on Antitrust and False Statement Charges’, DOJ (4 Feb 2020), www.justice.gov/opa/pr/generic-drug-executive-indicted-antitrust-and-false-statement-charges; ‘Antitrust Division Spring Update 2021’, DOJ, Generic Drugs Investigation Targets Anticompetitive Schemes (24 Mar 2021), https://www.justice.gov/atr/division-operations/division-update-spring-2021/generic-drugs-investigation-targets-anticompetitive-schemes.

[76] Press Release, ‘Former Generic Pharmaceutical Executive Pleads Guilty for Role in Criminal Antitrust Conspiracy’, DOJ (14 Feb 2020), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-generic-pharmaceutical-executive-pleads-guilty-role-criminal-antitrust-conspiracy.

[77] Press Release, ‘Former Top Generic Pharmaceutical Executives Charged with Price-Fixing, Bid-Rigging and Customer Allocation Conspiracies’, DOJ (14 Dec 2016), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-top-generic-pharmaceutical-executives-charged-price-fixing-bid-rigging-and-customer; Plea Agreement, United States v Jason T Malek, 2:16-cr-00508 (E.D. Pa. 10 Jan 2017), https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/931386/download; Plea Agreement, United States v Jeffrey A Glazer, 2:16-cr-00506 (E.D. Pa. 9 Jan 2017).

[78] Press Release, ‘Generic Drug Executive Indicted on Antitrust and False Statement Charges’, DOJ (4 Feb 2020), www.justice.gov/opa/pr/generic-drug-executive-indicted-antitrust-and-false-statement-charges.

[79] id.; see also Andrew Karpan, ‘DOJ Wants To Keep Generic-Drug Exec's Case In Pa.’, Law360 (18 June 2020), https://www.law360.com/articles/1284210.

[80] Press Release, ‘Former Foreign Exchange Trader Sentenced To Prison For Price Fixing And Bid Rigging’, DOJ (17 Sept 2020), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-foreign-exchange-trader-sentenced-prison-price-fixing-and-bid-rigging.

[81] id.

[82] id.; see also Sentencing Submission at 13, 36–37, 44–47, 51, United States v Aiyer, No. 18-cr-00333, ECF 221 (S.D.N.Y. 17 Apr 2020).

[83] Notice of Crim. Appeal, United States v Aiyer, No. 20-3594, ECF 1 (2d Cir. 16 Oct 2020).

[84] Brief of Appellee United States at 4–5, United States v Aiyer, No. 20-3594, ECF 82 (2d Cir. 30 Apr 2021), https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/1391176/download.

[85] Mike Leonard, ‘Ex-JPMorgan Trader Convicted of Forex Rigging Wins Bail Appeal’, Bloomberg Law (2 Dec 2020), https://bnanews.bna.com/antitrust/ex-jpmorgan-trader-convicted-of-forex-rigging-wins-bail-appeal?context=search&index=3.

[86] Sent’g Submission at FN 89, United States v Aiyer, No. 18-cr-00333 (S.D.N.Y. 17 Apr 2020).

[87] id.

[88] Pete Brush, ‘Ex-Citigroup Forex Rigger Who Helped Feds Fined $20K’, Law360 (22 Oct 2020), https://www.law360.com/articles/1322124/ex-citigroup-forex-rigger-who-helped-feds-fined-20k.

[89] id.

[90] Peter Brush, ‘Ex-Barclays Forex Rigger Who Helped Feds Fined $50K’, Law360 (5 Oct 2020), https://www.law360.com/articles/1315982/ex-barclays-forex-rigger-who-helped-feds-fined-50k.

[91] Brendan Pierson, ‘London forex traders found not guilty in US rigging case’, Reuters (26 Oct 2018), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-forex-trial/london-forex-traders-found-not-guilty-in-u-s-rigging-case-idUSKCN1N02HH.

Get unlimited access to all Global Competition Review content