FROM: U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
CFTC Orders China-based Weidong Ge and Sheenson Investments, Ltd. to Pay $1.5 Million in Monetary Sanctions for Violating Speculative Position Limits in Cotton And Soybean Futures
Washington, DC - The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that Weidong Ge (Ge) and Sheenson Investments, Ltd. (Sheenson), both of Shanghai, China, agreed to pay disgorgement of $1 million and a $500,000 civil monetary penalty to settle CFTC charges that they exceeded speculative position limits in Soybean Oil and Cotton No. 2 futures contracts.
According to the CFTC order settling the matter, on February 26, 2009, Sheenson exceeded the all months combined speculative limit of 6,500 contracts in Soybean Oil by 350 contracts, and on March 10, 2009, Sheenson exceeded the same Soybean Oil limit by 88 contracts. The order also finds that from January 6, 2011 through February 11, 2011, Ge, by virtue of his ownership interest in Sheenson, Chaos Investment Co. Ltd. (British Virgin Islands), and Chaos Investment Ltd. (Hong Kong), exceeded the single month limit of 3,500 contracts in Cotton No. 2 by as much as 599 contracts and the all months limit of 5,000 contracts in Cotton No. 2 by as much as 389 contracts. On July 18, 2011, Ge, by virtue of his ownership in the above described companies, exceeded the single month limit in Cotton No. 2 by 143 contracts, according to the order.
In addition to ordering disgorgement and imposing a civil monetary penalty, the CFTC’s order requires Ge and Sheenson to cease and desist from violating the Commodity Exchange Act’s prohibition against exceeding speculative position limits.
CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this action are Patrick M. Pericak, Daniel C. Jordan, Michael Loconte, Jeremy Cusimano, Rick Glaser and Richard Wagner, and Susan Donlan and Walter Spilka of the CFTC’s Division of Market Oversight.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Monday, October 8, 2012
ABBOT LABORATORIES INC., MUST PAY $700 MILLION IN FINES AND FORFEITURES
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Judge Imposes $500 Million Fine and $198.5 Million Forfeiture for Illegal Marketing
Pharmaceutical manufacturer Abbott Laboratories Inc. was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Samuel G. Wilson of the Western District of Virginia in connection with its guilty plea related to its unlawful promotion of the prescription drug Depakote for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the Justice Department announced today. Abbott, which was ordered to pay a criminal fine in the amount of $500 million, plus a forfeiture of $198.5 million, and $1.5 million to the Virginia Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, will also be subject to a five-year term of probation.
In May 2012, Abbott pleaded guilty to a criminal misdemeanor for misbranding Depakote in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). Abbott’s criminal plea related to the misbranding of Depakote by promoting the drug to control behavioral disturbances in dementia patients and to treat schizophrenia when neither of these uses was approved by the FDA. Under the provisions of the FDCA, a company is required to specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to FDA. Once approved, the drug may not be marketed or promoted for "off-label" uses – unless the company applies to the FDA for approval of the additional use. In an agreed statement of facts, Abbott admitted that from January 1998 to December 2006 it marketed Depakote off-label to treat behavioral disturbances in dementia patients, and from January 2002 to December 2006, Abbott marketed Depakote off-label to treat schizophrenia.
Under the terms of the plea agreement, Abbott agreed to pay the second-largest criminal fine for a single drug, executed a fulsome statement of facts (with exhibits) revealing the extent of its unlawful conduct, admitted that it engaged in misleading statements, and submitted to a five-year term of probation. Under the terms of its probation, on an annual basis, Abbott’s CEO and board of directors will need to personally certify that the company is complying with the law.
Abbott’s guilty plea was part of a global resolution involving its illegal promotional activity. Abbott also entered into a civil settlement agreement under which it agreed to pay $800 million to the federal government and the states to resolve claims that its unlawful marketing and illegal remuneration practices caused false claims to be submitted to government healthcare programs. The parallel civil settlement covered a broader range of conduct by Abbott. The settlement resolved allegations that in addition to off-label marketing for dementia and schizophrenia, Abbott also marketed Depakote for other psychiatric conditions in adults, including depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol and drug withdrawal and psychiatric conditions in children, including conduct disorders, attention deficit disorder and autism.
In addition to the criminal and civil resolutions, Abbott also agreed to enter into an expansive 5-year corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS-OIG) that requires enhanced accountability, increased transparency, and wide-ranging monitoring activities conducted by both internal and independent external reviewers.
"Today’s sentencing confirms that the resolution we reached with Abbott in May is the right result. And it emphasizes the importance of the U.S. government’s coordinated efforts to combat health care fraud. We expect companies to make honest, lawful claims about the drugs they sell, we will be vigorous in our enforcement efforts when they break the law, and the courts will hold them accountable." said Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division.
"Abbott unlawfully targeted a vulnerable population, the elderly, through its off-label promotion. The court’s sentence makes clear that those who engage in such conduct will be prosecuted and held accountable," said Timothy Heaphy, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Judge Imposes $500 Million Fine and $198.5 Million Forfeiture for Illegal Marketing
Pharmaceutical manufacturer Abbott Laboratories Inc. was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Samuel G. Wilson of the Western District of Virginia in connection with its guilty plea related to its unlawful promotion of the prescription drug Depakote for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the Justice Department announced today. Abbott, which was ordered to pay a criminal fine in the amount of $500 million, plus a forfeiture of $198.5 million, and $1.5 million to the Virginia Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, will also be subject to a five-year term of probation.
In May 2012, Abbott pleaded guilty to a criminal misdemeanor for misbranding Depakote in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). Abbott’s criminal plea related to the misbranding of Depakote by promoting the drug to control behavioral disturbances in dementia patients and to treat schizophrenia when neither of these uses was approved by the FDA. Under the provisions of the FDCA, a company is required to specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to FDA. Once approved, the drug may not be marketed or promoted for "off-label" uses – unless the company applies to the FDA for approval of the additional use. In an agreed statement of facts, Abbott admitted that from January 1998 to December 2006 it marketed Depakote off-label to treat behavioral disturbances in dementia patients, and from January 2002 to December 2006, Abbott marketed Depakote off-label to treat schizophrenia.
Under the terms of the plea agreement, Abbott agreed to pay the second-largest criminal fine for a single drug, executed a fulsome statement of facts (with exhibits) revealing the extent of its unlawful conduct, admitted that it engaged in misleading statements, and submitted to a five-year term of probation. Under the terms of its probation, on an annual basis, Abbott’s CEO and board of directors will need to personally certify that the company is complying with the law.
Abbott’s guilty plea was part of a global resolution involving its illegal promotional activity. Abbott also entered into a civil settlement agreement under which it agreed to pay $800 million to the federal government and the states to resolve claims that its unlawful marketing and illegal remuneration practices caused false claims to be submitted to government healthcare programs. The parallel civil settlement covered a broader range of conduct by Abbott. The settlement resolved allegations that in addition to off-label marketing for dementia and schizophrenia, Abbott also marketed Depakote for other psychiatric conditions in adults, including depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol and drug withdrawal and psychiatric conditions in children, including conduct disorders, attention deficit disorder and autism.
In addition to the criminal and civil resolutions, Abbott also agreed to enter into an expansive 5-year corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS-OIG) that requires enhanced accountability, increased transparency, and wide-ranging monitoring activities conducted by both internal and independent external reviewers.
"Today’s sentencing confirms that the resolution we reached with Abbott in May is the right result. And it emphasizes the importance of the U.S. government’s coordinated efforts to combat health care fraud. We expect companies to make honest, lawful claims about the drugs they sell, we will be vigorous in our enforcement efforts when they break the law, and the courts will hold them accountable." said Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division.
"Abbott unlawfully targeted a vulnerable population, the elderly, through its off-label promotion. The court’s sentence makes clear that those who engage in such conduct will be prosecuted and held accountable," said Timothy Heaphy, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
BIGLARI HOLDINGS INC. TO PAY $850,000 CIVIL PENALTY
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Violations Occurred When Cracker Barrel Voting Securities Were Acquired
WASHINGTON — San Antonio-based Biglari Holdings Inc. will pay an $850,000 civil penalty to settle charges that it violated premerger reporting and waiting requirements when it acquired Cracker Barrel voting securities, the Department of Justice announced today.
The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, at the request of the Federal Trade Commission, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit today in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., against Biglari Holdings for violating the notification requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act of 1976. At the same time, the department filed a proposed settlement that, if approved by the court, will settle the charges.
According to the complaint, Biglari Holdings failed to comply with the antitrust premerger notification requirements of the HSR Act before acquiring voting securities of Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc. in June of 2011. Although the HSR Act exempts from its premerger notification requirements certain acquisitions "solely for the purpose of investment," Biglari Holdings’ acquisitions were not made solely for the purpose of investment, the department said. The complaint alleges that Biglari Holdings was in violation of the HSR Act from June 8, 2011 through Sept. 22, 2011.
The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act of 1976, an amendment to the Clayton Act, imposes notification and waiting period requirements on individuals and companies over a certain size before they consummate acquisitions resulting in holding stock or assets above a certain value, which was $66 million in 2011 and is currently $68.2 million.
Federal courts can assess civil penalties for premerger notification violations under the HSR Act in lawsuits brought by the Department of Justice. For a party in violation of the HSR Act the maximum civil penalty is $16,000 a day.
Violations Occurred When Cracker Barrel Voting Securities Were Acquired
WASHINGTON — San Antonio-based Biglari Holdings Inc. will pay an $850,000 civil penalty to settle charges that it violated premerger reporting and waiting requirements when it acquired Cracker Barrel voting securities, the Department of Justice announced today.
The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, at the request of the Federal Trade Commission, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit today in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., against Biglari Holdings for violating the notification requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act of 1976. At the same time, the department filed a proposed settlement that, if approved by the court, will settle the charges.
According to the complaint, Biglari Holdings failed to comply with the antitrust premerger notification requirements of the HSR Act before acquiring voting securities of Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc. in June of 2011. Although the HSR Act exempts from its premerger notification requirements certain acquisitions "solely for the purpose of investment," Biglari Holdings’ acquisitions were not made solely for the purpose of investment, the department said. The complaint alleges that Biglari Holdings was in violation of the HSR Act from June 8, 2011 through Sept. 22, 2011.
The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act of 1976, an amendment to the Clayton Act, imposes notification and waiting period requirements on individuals and companies over a certain size before they consummate acquisitions resulting in holding stock or assets above a certain value, which was $66 million in 2011 and is currently $68.2 million.
Federal courts can assess civil penalties for premerger notification violations under the HSR Act in lawsuits brought by the Department of Justice. For a party in violation of the HSR Act the maximum civil penalty is $16,000 a day.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
U.S. GOVERNEMENT RADIOACTIVE WASTE CONTRACTOR ALLEGEDLY ENGAGED IN TIME CARD FRAUD
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Friday, September 28, 2012
U.S. Government Intervenes in False Claims Suit Against CH2M Hill Hanford Group
Colorado-based Company Allegedly Engaged in Widespread Time Card Fraud At Department of Energy Nuclear Site
The government has intervened in a lawsuit against CH2M Hill Hanford Group Inc. (CH2M Hill) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, the Department of Justice announced today. CH2M Hill is a subsidiary of CH2M Hill Companies Ltd., a Colorado-based engineering and construction services company.
Between 1999 and 2008, CH2M Hill was a U.S. Department of Energy prime contractor responsible for the management and cleanup of over 170 underground storage tanks containing mixed radioactive and hazardous waste at the Department of Energy’s Hanford Nuclear Site in southeastern Washington. The lawsuit filed by Mr. Schroeder alleges that numerous CH2M Hill hourly employees regularly and substantially overstated the number of hours that they worked. The complaint also alleges that CH2M Hill management knowingly condoned this practice and submitted inflated claims to the Department of Energy that included the fraudulently claimed hours.
Eight former CH2M Hill employees, including Mr. Schroeder, have pleaded guilty to felony charges stemming from the time card fraud. The lawsuit was originally filed under the False Claims Act by Carl Schroeder, a former employee of CH2M Hill.
The False Claims Act authorizes private parties to sue on behalf of the United States and authorizes the United States to intervene in such a suit and take over responsibility for litigating it. Although the act generally authorizes the whistleblower who initiated the suit to share in any recovery, it also bars recovery by any whistleblower who is convicted of criminal conduct for his role in the fraud/ The United States has notified the court that it expects to file a motion to dismiss Mr. Schroeder from the action on the basis of is criminal conduct. Mr. Schroder’s lawsuit is captioned U.S. ex rel. Schroeder v. CH2M Hill, 09-cv-5038.
The claims asserted in this case are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability. The case is being handled by the Civil Division of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Washington, with the assistance of the Department of Energy Office of Inspector General.
Friday, September 28, 2012
U.S. Government Intervenes in False Claims Suit Against CH2M Hill Hanford Group
Colorado-based Company Allegedly Engaged in Widespread Time Card Fraud At Department of Energy Nuclear Site
The government has intervened in a lawsuit against CH2M Hill Hanford Group Inc. (CH2M Hill) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, the Department of Justice announced today. CH2M Hill is a subsidiary of CH2M Hill Companies Ltd., a Colorado-based engineering and construction services company.
Between 1999 and 2008, CH2M Hill was a U.S. Department of Energy prime contractor responsible for the management and cleanup of over 170 underground storage tanks containing mixed radioactive and hazardous waste at the Department of Energy’s Hanford Nuclear Site in southeastern Washington. The lawsuit filed by Mr. Schroeder alleges that numerous CH2M Hill hourly employees regularly and substantially overstated the number of hours that they worked. The complaint also alleges that CH2M Hill management knowingly condoned this practice and submitted inflated claims to the Department of Energy that included the fraudulently claimed hours.
Eight former CH2M Hill employees, including Mr. Schroeder, have pleaded guilty to felony charges stemming from the time card fraud. The lawsuit was originally filed under the False Claims Act by Carl Schroeder, a former employee of CH2M Hill.
The False Claims Act authorizes private parties to sue on behalf of the United States and authorizes the United States to intervene in such a suit and take over responsibility for litigating it. Although the act generally authorizes the whistleblower who initiated the suit to share in any recovery, it also bars recovery by any whistleblower who is convicted of criminal conduct for his role in the fraud/ The United States has notified the court that it expects to file a motion to dismiss Mr. Schroeder from the action on the basis of is criminal conduct. Mr. Schroder’s lawsuit is captioned U.S. ex rel. Schroeder v. CH2M Hill, 09-cv-5038.
The claims asserted in this case are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability. The case is being handled by the Civil Division of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Washington, with the assistance of the Department of Energy Office of Inspector General.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR SETTLES SEX DISCRIMINATION CHARGES WITH NASH FINCH CO.
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Minnesota-based food distributor to pay back wages to 84 women — and provide job offers — to settle allegations of sex discrimination at North Carolina facility
LUMBERTON, N.C. — The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs has reached an agreement with federal contractor Nash Finch Co. to settle allegations of hiring discrimination against female job applicants at the company's distribution facility in Lumberton. In consent findings approved by the department's Office of Administrative Law Judges, Nash Finch Co. has agreed to pay $188,500 in back wages and interest to 84 women who were rejected for the entry-level position of order selector at the company's distribution facility in Lumberton.
"I am glad we were able to achieve a fair resolution in this case," said Solicitor of Labor M. Patricia Smith. "Our economy cannot afford to lose the skills and talents of millions of American women who count on us to enforce equal opportunity laws so that they can find good jobs without fear of discrimination."
OFCCP investigators conducted a review of Nash Finch's employment practices at the Lumberton facility from May 1, 2005, to Dec. 31, 2006. Based on their findings, the agency asserted that Nash Finch had failed to ensure qualified female job applicants received equal consideration for employment without regard to sex as required by Executive Order 11246. OFCCP filed a complaint with the Labor Department's Office of Administrative Law Judges on Nov. 30, 2010, alleging that Nash Finch systematically had discriminated against women who applied for jobs as order selectors during a nine-month period in 2006.
"Our government relies on thousands of private companies to produce the goods and provide the services that we depend on to do our jobs," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "It is in everyone's best interest that contractors like Nash Finch succeed. But, for federal contractors, success is not measured solely by performing a task or providing a service. True success means that, as required by law, every qualified worker has a fair shot at jobs funded by taxpayer dollars."
In addition to the financial remedies, the settlement requires Nash Finch to extend job offers to up to 12 women in the original class as order selector positions become available. The company must also submit progress reports to OFCCP for the next two years.
Women who applied and were rejected for order selector positions at Nash Finch's Lumberton facility between March 1 and Dec. 31, 2006, may be eligible for the back wages, interest and job opportunities in this settlement. The company will attempt to contact all class members to explain their eligibility for these remedies. However, anyone who does not receive such a notice and believes the omission is an error can contact OFCCP's toll-free helpline at 800-397-6251 (TTY: 877-889-5627) for more information.
Nash Finch is based in Minneapolis and is the second-largest publicly traded wholesale food distributor in the nation. The company distributes food products to military commissaries around the world. Since the start of the OFCCP review period on May 1, 2005, Nash Finch has received payments of more than $14 million from the U.S. Department of Defense.
In addition to Executive Order 11246, OFCCP enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act Of 1974. As amended, these three laws require those who do business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran.
Minnesota-based food distributor to pay back wages to 84 women — and provide job offers — to settle allegations of sex discrimination at North Carolina facility
LUMBERTON, N.C. — The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs has reached an agreement with federal contractor Nash Finch Co. to settle allegations of hiring discrimination against female job applicants at the company's distribution facility in Lumberton. In consent findings approved by the department's Office of Administrative Law Judges, Nash Finch Co. has agreed to pay $188,500 in back wages and interest to 84 women who were rejected for the entry-level position of order selector at the company's distribution facility in Lumberton.
"I am glad we were able to achieve a fair resolution in this case," said Solicitor of Labor M. Patricia Smith. "Our economy cannot afford to lose the skills and talents of millions of American women who count on us to enforce equal opportunity laws so that they can find good jobs without fear of discrimination."
OFCCP investigators conducted a review of Nash Finch's employment practices at the Lumberton facility from May 1, 2005, to Dec. 31, 2006. Based on their findings, the agency asserted that Nash Finch had failed to ensure qualified female job applicants received equal consideration for employment without regard to sex as required by Executive Order 11246. OFCCP filed a complaint with the Labor Department's Office of Administrative Law Judges on Nov. 30, 2010, alleging that Nash Finch systematically had discriminated against women who applied for jobs as order selectors during a nine-month period in 2006.
"Our government relies on thousands of private companies to produce the goods and provide the services that we depend on to do our jobs," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "It is in everyone's best interest that contractors like Nash Finch succeed. But, for federal contractors, success is not measured solely by performing a task or providing a service. True success means that, as required by law, every qualified worker has a fair shot at jobs funded by taxpayer dollars."
In addition to the financial remedies, the settlement requires Nash Finch to extend job offers to up to 12 women in the original class as order selector positions become available. The company must also submit progress reports to OFCCP for the next two years.
Women who applied and were rejected for order selector positions at Nash Finch's Lumberton facility between March 1 and Dec. 31, 2006, may be eligible for the back wages, interest and job opportunities in this settlement. The company will attempt to contact all class members to explain their eligibility for these remedies. However, anyone who does not receive such a notice and believes the omission is an error can contact OFCCP's toll-free helpline at 800-397-6251 (TTY: 877-889-5627) for more information.
Nash Finch is based in Minneapolis and is the second-largest publicly traded wholesale food distributor in the nation. The company distributes food products to military commissaries around the world. Since the start of the OFCCP review period on May 1, 2005, Nash Finch has received payments of more than $14 million from the U.S. Department of Defense.
In addition to Executive Order 11246, OFCCP enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act Of 1974. As amended, these three laws require those who do business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran.
Monday, October 1, 2012
FREIGHT FORWARDING COMPANY AGREES TO PAY $2.3 MILLION CRIMINAL FINE TO SETTLE PRICE FIXING CHARGES
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Company Agrees to Pay a $2.3 Million Criminal Fine
WASHINGTON — A Japanese freight forwarding company has agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $2.3 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix certain fees in connection with the provision of freight forwarding services for air cargo shipments from Japan to the United States, the Department of Justice announced today.
Including today’s charge, as a result of this investigation, 14 companies have either pleaded guilty or agreed to plead guilty and to pay more than $100 million in criminal fines.
According to the one count felony charge filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Yamato Global Logistics Japan Co. Ltd. engaged in a conspiracy to fix and to impose certain freight forwarding service fees, including fuel surcharges and various security fees, charged to customers for services provided in connection with freight forwarding shipments of cargo shipped by air from Japan to the United States from about September 2002 until at least November 2007.
As part of the plea agreement, which will be subject to court approval, Yamato Global Logistics Japan Co. Ltd. has agreed to pay a criminal fine of $2,326,774 and to cooperate with the department’s ongoing antitrust investigation.
"Consumers ultimately were forced to pay higher prices on the goods they buy every day as a result of the noncompetitive and collusive service fees charged by these companies," said Scott D. Hammond, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement program. "Prosecuting these kinds of global price-fixing conspiracies continues to be a high priority of the Antitrust Division."
According to the charges, the company carried out the conspiracy by, among other things, agreeing during meetings and discussions to coordinate and impose certain freight forwarding service fees and charges on customers purchasing freight forwarding services for cargo shipped by air from Japan to the United States. The department said the company levied freight forwarding service fees in accordance with the agreements reached and engaged in meetings and discussions for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreed-upon freight forwarding service fees.
Freight forwarders manage the domestic and international delivery of cargo for customers by receiving, packaging, preparing and warehousing cargo freight, arranging for cargo shipment through transportation providers such as air carriers, preparing shipment documentation and providing related ancillary services.
The company is charged with price fixing in violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum $100 million fine for corporations. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.
Company Agrees to Pay a $2.3 Million Criminal Fine
WASHINGTON — A Japanese freight forwarding company has agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $2.3 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix certain fees in connection with the provision of freight forwarding services for air cargo shipments from Japan to the United States, the Department of Justice announced today.
Including today’s charge, as a result of this investigation, 14 companies have either pleaded guilty or agreed to plead guilty and to pay more than $100 million in criminal fines.
According to the one count felony charge filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Yamato Global Logistics Japan Co. Ltd. engaged in a conspiracy to fix and to impose certain freight forwarding service fees, including fuel surcharges and various security fees, charged to customers for services provided in connection with freight forwarding shipments of cargo shipped by air from Japan to the United States from about September 2002 until at least November 2007.
As part of the plea agreement, which will be subject to court approval, Yamato Global Logistics Japan Co. Ltd. has agreed to pay a criminal fine of $2,326,774 and to cooperate with the department’s ongoing antitrust investigation.
"Consumers ultimately were forced to pay higher prices on the goods they buy every day as a result of the noncompetitive and collusive service fees charged by these companies," said Scott D. Hammond, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement program. "Prosecuting these kinds of global price-fixing conspiracies continues to be a high priority of the Antitrust Division."
According to the charges, the company carried out the conspiracy by, among other things, agreeing during meetings and discussions to coordinate and impose certain freight forwarding service fees and charges on customers purchasing freight forwarding services for cargo shipped by air from Japan to the United States. The department said the company levied freight forwarding service fees in accordance with the agreements reached and engaged in meetings and discussions for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreed-upon freight forwarding service fees.
Freight forwarders manage the domestic and international delivery of cargo for customers by receiving, packaging, preparing and warehousing cargo freight, arranging for cargo shipment through transportation providers such as air carriers, preparing shipment documentation and providing related ancillary services.
The company is charged with price fixing in violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum $100 million fine for corporations. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
UNLAWFUL REFUSAL TO HIRE UNIONIZED EMPLOYEES
FROM: U.S. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The National Labor Relations Board has ruled that Massey Energy Company and its subsidiary, Mammoth Coal Company, unlawfully refused to hire former unionized employees in order to avoid union obligations at a West Virginia coal mine it had purchased.
Massey bought the mine in Kanawha County in 2004 from Horizon Natural Resources Company after Horizon declared bankruptcy. Massey then created Mammoth Coal, a subsidiary, to operate the mine.
In the end, only 19 of the former miners were hired into a workforce of 219. Then, having eliminated the union, Mammoth unlawfully imposed a lower wage structure for all miners, the Board found.
Under the National Labor Relations Act, the buyer of a union company must recognize and bargain with the union if a majority of the buyer’s new employees came from the former union-represented workforce. It is also a violation of labor law to discriminate against union supporters in hiring.
Members Griffin and Block also found that Massey Energy was responsible for the discriminatory treatment of the miners because it directly participated in the unlawful conduct. "Massey made clear to the managers and supervisors making the hiring decisions for Mammoth that Massey would not accept a union in that operation," the Board majority found. In addition, the Board majority, rejecting procedural arguments, found Massey and Mammoth to constitute a single employer based on their integrated operations and lack of arms-length relationship. (The Board had earlier asked all parties to the case to submit supplemental briefs on the single employer question.) Massey is therefore jointly liable for any remedies, including backpay for miners who were unlawfully discriminated against.
On that point, Member Hayes dissented. He found that neither the direct participation issue, nor the single employer issue were raised by the NLRB General Counsel in his complaint or in arguments before an administrative law judge who initially heard the case. He also found that the additional briefing requested by the Board did not cure that failure. "In their collective zeal to hold Massey liable – for the obvious reason that it is far more likely than Mammoth to have funds to meet backpay obligations – the Acting General Counsel and my colleagues have trampled due process," Member Hayes wrote.
In its decision, the Board ordered Mammoth and Massey to offer employment to 85 named former Horizon employees and make them whole for lost earnings, to recognize the union and bargain with it on request, to restore the former terms and conditions of employment, and to bargain in good faith with the union regarding any changes. (In 2011, Massey Energy was purchased by Alpha Natural Resources.)
The National Labor Relations Board has ruled that Massey Energy Company and its subsidiary, Mammoth Coal Company, unlawfully refused to hire former unionized employees in order to avoid union obligations at a West Virginia coal mine it had purchased.
Massey bought the mine in Kanawha County in 2004 from Horizon Natural Resources Company after Horizon declared bankruptcy. Massey then created Mammoth Coal, a subsidiary, to operate the mine.
In the end, only 19 of the former miners were hired into a workforce of 219. Then, having eliminated the union, Mammoth unlawfully imposed a lower wage structure for all miners, the Board found.
Under the National Labor Relations Act, the buyer of a union company must recognize and bargain with the union if a majority of the buyer’s new employees came from the former union-represented workforce. It is also a violation of labor law to discriminate against union supporters in hiring.
Members Griffin and Block also found that Massey Energy was responsible for the discriminatory treatment of the miners because it directly participated in the unlawful conduct. "Massey made clear to the managers and supervisors making the hiring decisions for Mammoth that Massey would not accept a union in that operation," the Board majority found. In addition, the Board majority, rejecting procedural arguments, found Massey and Mammoth to constitute a single employer based on their integrated operations and lack of arms-length relationship. (The Board had earlier asked all parties to the case to submit supplemental briefs on the single employer question.) Massey is therefore jointly liable for any remedies, including backpay for miners who were unlawfully discriminated against.
On that point, Member Hayes dissented. He found that neither the direct participation issue, nor the single employer issue were raised by the NLRB General Counsel in his complaint or in arguments before an administrative law judge who initially heard the case. He also found that the additional briefing requested by the Board did not cure that failure. "In their collective zeal to hold Massey liable – for the obvious reason that it is far more likely than Mammoth to have funds to meet backpay obligations – the Acting General Counsel and my colleagues have trampled due process," Member Hayes wrote.
In its decision, the Board ordered Mammoth and Massey to offer employment to 85 named former Horizon employees and make them whole for lost earnings, to recognize the union and bargain with it on request, to restore the former terms and conditions of employment, and to bargain in good faith with the union regarding any changes. (In 2011, Massey Energy was purchased by Alpha Natural Resources.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)