Tag: DOJ

CPSC & DOJ Sue Michaels Stores for Failing to Report Product Safety Hazard and Filing Misleading Information

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

For the first time in recent memory, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) jointly announced the filing of a lawsuit in federal court for the imposition of a civil penalty and injunctive relief for violation of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). The lawsuit is against arts and crafts retailer Michaels Stores and its subsidiary Michaels Stores Procurement Co. Inc. (collectively, “Michaels” or “the Company”)  for failing to timely report a potential product safety hazard to the CPSC. Unlike other CPSC civil penalty actions involving DOJ, this penalty does not already have a negotiated consent decree in place and it appears that the case could be fully litigated.

The complaint alleges that Michaels knowingly violated the CPSA by failing to timely report to the CPSC that the glass walls of certain vases were too thin to withstand normal handling, thereby posing a laceration hazard to consumers.  According to the complaint, multiple consumers suffered injuries, including nerve damage and hand surgeries, from 2007 to late 2009.

Michaels allegedly did not report the potential defect to the Commission until February 2010.  Of course, we only know one side of the allegations, and Michaels will respond to those allegations in the coming weeks. The Company did state that “it believes the facts will show it acted promptly and appropriately.”

WaterNotably, the complaint also alleges that when Michaels filed an initial report with the CPSC in 2010, it provided “only the limited information required to be furnished by distributors and retailers” under the CPSA.  However, and critically, as the complaint sets forth in more detail, manufacturers—whose definition under the CPSA includes importers of record—are required to provide more information to the Commission than retailers.

According to the government, Michaels’ report conveyed the false impression that the Company did not import the vases, even though the Company was the importer of record and thus was required to submit significantly more information as themanufacturer of the vases.  The lawsuit alleges that Michaels made this misrepresentation in order to avoid the responsibility of undertaking a product recall.

As for the remedy, the government is seeking a civil penalty (in an unidentified amount) and various forms of injunctive relief, including the enactment of a stringent compliance program to ensure future compliance with CPSC reporting obligations.  This requested relief is similar to what the CPSC has required in almost all civil penalty agreements with other companies over the past few years.

What makes this complaint so newsworthy is that the government and Michaels plan to litigate the imposition of a civil penalty.  As noted above, this is not a frequent occurrence because companies tend to settle civil penalty claims rather than litigate. Given how infrequently civil penalties are litigated and the lack of any legal precedent guiding civil penalty negotiations under the heightened $15 million penalty limits, any judgment likely would have a wide-ranging impact on all future civil penalty negotiations between companies and the CPSC.

As we have previously stated, we expect the Commission to remain active in 2015 in bringing enforcement actions against companies for violations of the CPSA and other safety statutes.

We will watch this case closely and update our readers on any noteworthy developments.

ARTICLE BY

Matthew Cohen
Matthew R. Howsare
Charles A. Samuels
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Consumer Product Matters Blog

CPSC & DOJ Sue Michaels Stores for Failing to Report Product Safety Hazard and Filing Misleading Information

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

For the first time in recent memory, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) jointly announced the filing of a lawsuit in federal court for the imposition of a civil penalty and injunctive relief for violation of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). The lawsuit is against arts and crafts retailer Michaels Stores and its subsidiary Michaels Stores Procurement Co. Inc. (collectively, “Michaels” or “the Company”)  for failing to timely report a potential product safety hazard to the CPSC. Unlike other CPSC civil penalty actions involving DOJ, this penalty does not already have a negotiated consent decree in place and it appears that the case could be fully litigated.

The complaint alleges that Michaels knowingly violated the CPSA by failing to timely report to the CPSC that the glass walls of certain vases were too thin to withstand normal handling, thereby posing a laceration hazard to consumers.  According to the complaint, multiple consumers suffered injuries, including nerve damage and hand surgeries, from 2007 to late 2009.

Michaels allegedly did not report the potential defect to the Commission until February 2010.  Of course, we only know one side of the allegations, and Michaels will respond to those allegations in the coming weeks. The Company did state that “it believes the facts will show it acted promptly and appropriately.”

WaterNotably, the complaint also alleges that when Michaels filed an initial report with the CPSC in 2010, it provided “only the limited information required to be furnished by distributors and retailers” under the CPSA.  However, and critically, as the complaint sets forth in more detail, manufacturers—whose definition under the CPSA includes importers of record—are required to provide more information to the Commission than retailers.

According to the government, Michaels’ report conveyed the false impression that the Company did not import the vases, even though the Company was the importer of record and thus was required to submit significantly more information as themanufacturer of the vases.  The lawsuit alleges that Michaels made this misrepresentation in order to avoid the responsibility of undertaking a product recall.

As for the remedy, the government is seeking a civil penalty (in an unidentified amount) and various forms of injunctive relief, including the enactment of a stringent compliance program to ensure future compliance with CPSC reporting obligations.  This requested relief is similar to what the CPSC has required in almost all civil penalty agreements with other companies over the past few years.

What makes this complaint so newsworthy is that the government and Michaels plan to litigate the imposition of a civil penalty.  As noted above, this is not a frequent occurrence because companies tend to settle civil penalty claims rather than litigate. Given how infrequently civil penalties are litigated and the lack of any legal precedent guiding civil penalty negotiations under the heightened $15 million penalty limits, any judgment likely would have a wide-ranging impact on all future civil penalty negotiations between companies and the CPSC.

As we have previously stated, we expect the Commission to remain active in 2015 in bringing enforcement actions against companies for violations of the CPSA and other safety statutes.

We will watch this case closely and update our readers on any noteworthy developments.

ARTICLE BY

Matthew Cohen
Matthew R. Howsare
Charles A. Samuels
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Consumer Product Matters Blog

Federal Government to Receive a $75 Million Settlement from CHSPSC in Alleged Medicaid Fraud Scheme: Community Health Systems Professional Services Corp.

Tycko & Zavareei LLP

On February 2, 2015, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation (CHSPSC) and three of its CHS affiliated hospitals in New Mexico, agreed to pay the government $75 million to settle allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (FCA) when it manipulated the Medicaid funding program by making illegal donations to New Mexico county governments in order to receive higher federally funded Medicaid payments.  The alleged improper donations from CHS were made to Chaves, Luna and San Miguel counties in the state of New Mexico.

The Sole Community Provider Program (SCP) is a federal and state funded program that is specifically designed to reimburse SCP hospitals for medical expenses incurred by uninsured and indigent patients.  Payments received by SCP hospitals are processed under New Mexico’s federal and state Medicaid Plan.  Under the SCP, the federal government will share 75 percent of patient claims incurred by SCP hospitals contingent on New Mexico’s state and local government’s ability to pay the remaining 25 percent under the matching share of the SCP.  One of the stipulations for receiving the funds is that the state and county government’s 25 percent share has to consist of state or county funds, and not impermissible “donations” from private hospitals.

According to the qui tam lawsuit filed by Robert Baker, a former CHSPSC revenue manager, on behalf of the government, between 2001 and 2010, CHS hospitals in the state of New Mexico filed claims to recover uninsured or indigent medical expenses under the SCP program.  However, the funds used to pay the state and local counties 25 percent share were donated by CHS.  This ongoing alleged illegal practice by CHS violated the FCA, and caused the state of New Mexico to present false claims to the United States for payments made to CHS under the SCP program.  In addition, the government also alleged that CHS concealed the true nature of these donations to avoid detection by federal and state authorities, and as a result of its scheme, received SCP payments which were funded by the United States in the amount of three times CHS’ “donations.”  The whistleblower, Mr. Baker, will receive approximately $18.6 million as his reward for having disclosed the fraud to the government under the False Claims Act.

ARTICLE BY

Whistleblower Practice Group
OF
Tycko & Zavareei LLP

New Jersey Pharmaceutical Company Agrees to Pay $39 Million to Settle Alleged Anti-Kickback Violations

tz logo 2

On January 9, 2015, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that pharmaceutical company Daiichi Sankyo, headquartered in New Jersey, agreed to pay the Government $39 million to settle claims that it violated the Anti-Kickback Statue and the False Claims Act (FCA) by allegedly incentivizing physicians to prescribe Daiichi drugs by providing kickbacks to those doctors.  The drugs prescribed as a result of those alleged kickbacks were billed under the Medicare or Medicaid Program, and thus paid for, at least in part, by the government.  This lawsuit was filed by former Daiichi sales representative Kathy Fragoules under the qui tam whistleblower provision of the FCA.  Fragoules will receive an award of $6.1 million, which represents approximately 15 percent of the settlement amount, for exposing Daiicho Sankyo’s alleged illegal practices.

The qui tam lawsuit, originally filed on behalf of the government by Fragoules, claims that for a period of six years, from January 1, 2005 to March 31, 2011, Daiichi Sankyo allegedly devised a scheme to promote several of its drug products by offering monetary kickbacks to physicians that prescribed Daiichi drugs to their patients.  The Physician Self-Referral Statue and the Anti-Kickback Statue prohibit anyone from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving remuneration in order to induce business reimbursed under the Medicare or Medicaid programs.  However, according to the government, Daiichi allegedly orchestrated kickback compensation to physicians in the form of speaker fees by allegedly funneling payment to health care providers through the Daiichi’s Physician Organization and Discussion programs known as PODs.  In doing so, the government claims that Daiichi knowingly and willfully violated the FCA.

Physician drug ordering and prescribing decisions continue to be influenced by the drug industry.  Last year, the DOJ reported billions in settlements in connection with the pharmaceutical industry arising out of violations of the Physician Self-Referral Statue and the Anti-Kickback Statue.  The government also paid out millions in awards to individuals and whistleblowers that exposed these alleged illegal practices through the filing of qui tam lawsuits under the FCA.  A whistleblower who files a case against a company that has committed fraud against the government, may receive compensation of up to 30 percent of the amount ultimately recovered by the government.

ARTICLE BY

Jonathan Tycko
OF
Tycko & Zavareei LLP

A Primer on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan logo

The conduct of your employees can implicate statutes other than the familiar federal and state fair employment laws, and an unwary employer can find itself subject to stiff fines and unwelcomed publicity by ignoring its compliance obligations under those statutes. For example, does your company conduct business abroad, and, if so, are you familiar with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”)? If you are an entity traded on an American exchange, incorporated under the laws of the United States, or acting while in the territory of the United States, or you are an individual who is an officer, director, employee, agent, or shareholder of such a company, are a citizen of the United States, or are a person acting in the United States, you are subject to liability under the FCPA. The FCPA prohibits giving or attempting to give anything of value to a foreign official in order to influence any act or decision of the foreign official in his or her official capacity or to secure any other improper advantage in order to obtain or retain business. The phrase “anything of value” has a very broad definition and includes even charitable contributions or gifts to family members of foreign officials, and bribes come in all shapes and sizes, often making them difficult to detect.

In recent years, the Securities and Exchange Commission(“SEC”) and Department of Justice (“DOJ”) have increased their focus on FCPA compliance, including securing a record $772 million fine against one company last year. Those agencies have also been increasingly targeting (or, at least, stated their intentions to increasingly target) individual actors, in addition to the increased enforcement against companies. This means that you and your employees are at risk under the FCPA in the event of a suspected or actual violation.

A robust FCPA compliance program can be a strong defense or prevention against FCPA issues. Compliance programs should be individually and narrowly developed and tailored to a company’s needs and risks. While there is no guaranteed checklist for an effective compliance program given the unique nature of companies, some hallmarks of an effective FCPA compliance program are:

  • A commitment from senior management and a clearly articulated policy against corruption;

  • Well-established and -disseminated codes of conduct and compliance policies and procedures;

  • Sufficient oversight, autonomy, authority, and resources for the program;

  • Risk assessment, resource allocation, and due diligence proportional to the type of activity or business opportunity, the particular country and industry sector, potential business partners, level and amount of government involvement, governing regulation and oversight of the activity, and exposure to customs and immigration in conducting the business;

  • Training and continuing advice throughout the company that clearly communicates, in the local language where appropriate, the policies and procedures, case studies, and practical advice for real-life scenarios individuals will encounter in their specific roles;

  • Disciplinary measures that are well publicized and clearly applicable to all levels of the organization;

  • Effective due diligence, review, and monitoring of transactions and dealings with third parties and vendors, as they are among the most common means through which violations take place;

  • Mechanisms that facilitate and encourage confidential reporting, such as hotlines or ombudspersons, and that properly document and evaluate actual and possible FCPA issues; and

  • Periodic testing, review, audit, and analysis of the effectiveness of the program to ensure it is the best program in place for your organization.

However, as employers with strong anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies know, even the best written and most well-intentioned policies cannot guarantee insulation from liability or from investigation by the government of suspected/potential violations. In the event a company discovers a violation by its employees, the DOJ and SEC encourage self-reporting and cooperation by entities and individuals, and cooperation can facilitate and expedite any potential investigation by government authorities and possibly result in non-prosecution agreements and reduced penalties.

Conversely, failing to disclose known violations can result in harsher penalties, thus providing incentive to identify and self-report violations. For its part, the government has created incentives to increase the chances that if a company will not report violations, its employees will. The Dodd-Frank Act established a whistleblower program that rewards whistleblowers between 10-30% of total recovery when the recovery exceeds $1 million, giving financial incentive for individual employees to come forward with reports of FCPA violations. Another important consideration when developing FCPA compliance measures and programs is to ensure that the compliance program is independent of and given due weight in relation to business decisions. All too often, FCPA issues are not timely discovered when compliance programs are not properly implemented because of a perceived business cost, and companies and employees face crippling fines and punishment as a result.

In any event, companies that are navigating these waters would be wise to consult with experienced legal counsel familiar with the FCPA and the government agencies charged with its enforcement, both when developing any compliance program and when dealing with a suspected violation.

ARTICLE BY

Radha Kulkarni
OF
Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan LLP

DOJ Settlement Suggests Push to Expand ADA Coverage to All Websites and Apps

Morgan Lewis logo

The chance of future DOJ investigations justifies companies’ reviews of customer-oriented websites and apps for accessibility.

As consumers continue to use the Internet and their smartphones for their shopping in astonishing numbers, especially on this Cyber Monday, a recent Department of Justice (DOJ) settlement agreement raises questions and potential serious implications for any company with customer-oriented websites or mobile applications. The settlement agreement requires Ahold USA., Inc. and Peapod, LLC (Peapod) to make the www.peapod.com website and Peapod’s mobile applications accessible to the disabled, including persons with vision, hearing, and manual impairments. The settlement agreement demonstrates that the DOJ is reviewing and/or monitoring websites and mobile apps for accessibility and remains aggressive in its push to extend the requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to all websites and mobile apps—even when the sites are unrelated to actual physical places of public accommodation. According to the settlement agreement, the DOJ concluded that www.peapod.com was inaccessible to the disabled after initiating a “compliance review” authorized by Title III and its implementing regulations.[1] Peapod, however, contested the DOJ’s conclusion that www.peapod.com and Peapod’s mobile apps were not ADA compliant.

The settlement agreement is particularly noteworthy because www.peapod.com is a purely online grocery delivery service, unrelated to a “brick and mortar” physical place of public accommodation. Most courts considering application of the ADA to websites require a website to have a “nexus” to a physical place.[2] In the past, the DOJ has required websites and mobile apps to be accessible—for example, in a March 2014 consent decree with H&R Block. However, unlike the H&R Block consent decree, which involved a website and mobile apps with a nexus to physical places, the Peapod settlement agreement requires that a website and apps with no nexus to a physical place be made accessible to the disabled. The Peapod settlement agreement therefore shows that the DOJ’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which is expected in March 2015, may require—in the words of the Abstract for the DOJ’s NPRM—the websites and apps of “private entities of all types,” even “[s]ocial networks and other online meeting places” to comply with the ADA.

The settlement agreement also indicates which standards the DOJ’s regulations eventually may require websites and mobile apps to meet. The settlement agreement requires www.peapod.com and Peapod’s mobile apps to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, Level AA (WCAG 2.0 AA). The DOJ has required compliance with the WCAG 2.0 AA in the past, including in the H&R Block consent decree. The Peapod settlement agreement further requires Peapod to designate a Website Accessibility Coordinator to coordinate compliance with the agreement; adopt a Website and Mobile Application Accessibility Policy; post a notice on its home page on its accessibility policy, which would include a toll-free number for assistance and a solicitation for feedback; annually train website content personnel on conforming Web content and apps to the WCAG 2.0 AA; seek contractual commitments from its vendors to provide conforming content, or (for content not subject to a written contract) seek out content that conforms to the WCAG 2.0 AA; modify bug fix priority policies to include the elimination of bugs that create accessibility barriers; and conduct automated accessibility tests of the website and apps at least once every six months and transmit the results to the government. The settlement agreement, which stays in effect for three years, additionally provides that every 12 months, the Website Accessibility Coordinator must submit a report to the government that details Peapod’s compliance or noncompliance with the agreement. Peapod is not the only entity that will conduct testing under the settlement agreement. At least once annually, individuals with vision, hearing, and manual disabilities will test the usability of the Web pages. Notably, however, the settlement agreement does not impose damages or a civil penalty on Peapod.

There is a chance that the DOJ’s eventual regulations will differ from the standards to which the DOJ requires Peapod to conform. The settlement agreement accounts for that possibility. It states that if the DOJ promulgates final regulations on website accessibility technical standards during the term of the settlement agreement, the parties must meet and confer at either’s request to discuss whether the agreement must be modified to make it consistent with the regulations.

[1]. See 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b)(1)(A)(i) (“The Attorney General . . . shall undertake periodic reviews of compliance of covered entities under this subchapter.”); 28 C.F.R. § 36.502(c) (“Where the Attorney General has reason to believe that there may be a violation of this part, he or she may initiate a compliance review.”).

[2]. See, e.g., Nat’l Fed. of the Blind v. Target Corp., 452 F. Supp. 2d 946, 953–56 (N.D. Cal. 2011).

ARTICLE BY

Anne Marie Estevez
Beth S. Joseph
Christopher K. Ramsey
OF
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

The DOJ Increases Scrutiny of Whistleblower False Claims Act Suits

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13The Criminal Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) recently announced that it will review all complaints filed under the qui tam provisions of the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) to determine if a parallel criminal investigation is appropriate. This announcement came during a September 17, 2014 speech by the recently-confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of the DOJ, Leslie Caldwell, at the Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund Conference in Washington D.C. This DOJ announcement signals a departure from prior policy, which allowed, but did not require, the Criminal Division to investigate Civil Division claims. In the past, the decision to open a criminal investigation was left to the discretion of each U.S. Attorney’s Office.

FraudNow, the Civil Division of the DOJ will share all new qui tam complaints with the Criminal Division as soon as they are filed. This change in procedure will likely be detrimental for defendants in future qui tam cases. With the Criminal Division more involved in False Claims cases, settlements with the government may become more difficult due to the need for approval from both the Civil and Criminal Divisions. Defendants may also face increased pressure to accept settlement offers from the government to avoid high-risk criminal penalties.

In 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder and Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced the creation of an interagency task force, the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (“HEAT”), to increase coordination and optimize criminal and civil enforcement.  This coordination yielded momentous results: the Department recovered $12.1 billion dollars under the False Claims Act from January 2009 through the end of the 2013 fiscal year.  Most of these recoveries relate to fraud against Medicare and Medicaid Programs. In fiscal year 2013 alone, the DOJ recovered $2.6 billion dollars for health care fraud violations and brought health care fraud-related prosecutions against 345 individuals.

Thus, providers seeking reimbursement from federal programs should be aware that non-compliance risks have never been greater. Providers or entities faced with a civil qui tam suit should immediately evaluate their exposure to possible criminal charges. Because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, companies should closely review their compliance programs and pay special attention to the protocols in place to prevent and detect potential false claims or billing violations.

ARTICLE BY

Emily M. Hord
OF
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division Implements Procedure to Immediately Review Civil Division Qui Tam Cases

vonBriesen

Recently, the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) said that the Criminal Division implemented a new procedure related to qui tam cases. Under the new procedure, the Criminal Division will immediately review qui tam cases it receives from the DOJ’s Civil Division to determine whether to open a criminal investigation into the case. If the Criminal Division opens an investigation, it will work with the Civil Division and U.S. Attorney’s Offices to coordinate parallel investigations.

The announcement can be found here.

ARTICLE BY

William O. Jackson
OF
von Briesen & Roper, S.C.

Manufacturer of Spinal Devices and Indiana Spinal Surgeon to Pay U.S. Government $2.6 Million for Violating the False Claims Act

tz logo 2On August 29, 2014, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Omni Surgical L.P. (dba Spine 360), and Dr. Jamie Gottlieb, an Indiana Spinal Surgeon, agreed to pay the U.S. Government $2.6 million to settle allegations that Spine 360 and Dr. Gottlieb knowingly violated the False Claims Act when Dr. Gottlieb accepted kickbacks from Spine 360 for using their medical devices.  In addition, Spine 360 falsified financial documents in order to cover up illegal incentives paid to Dr. Gottlieb in an attempt to avoid suspicion.

The Anti-Kickback Statute, a provision of the False Claims Act, is designed to protect patients and federal health care programs from fraud and abuse by prohibiting the use of money or anything of value that is intended to induce, reward, or influence health care decisions. Therefore, anyone who knowingly and willfully accepts or offers payment or compensation of any kind and in any manner with the intention of influencing medical decisions is in violation of the False Claims Act.  In this case, between 2007 and 2009, Spine 360, located in Austin, Texas, allegedly offered Dr. Gottlieb monetary kickbacks for using their medical devices on his patients.  In doing so, it allegedly influenced Dr. Gottlieb’s medical decisions and possibly compromised the quality care and best interest of his patients.

Medical violations of this kind are not new.  However, the U.S. Government continues to hold those in violation of the False Claims Act accountable for their actions.  For example, in July 2014, the government settled a lawsuit filed against two Infirmary Health System Inc. (IHS) affiliated clinics and Diagnostic Physicians Group P.C. (DPG) for violating the False Claims Act by paying or receiving financial inducements in connection with claims to the Medicare program. In this case, whistleblower, Dr. Christian Heesch, a physician formerly employed by Diagnostic Physicians Group, is entitled to $4.41 million for reporting fraud against government-funded programs.  Furthermore, last month, the government settled allegations that Carondelet Health Network (CHN) and its affiliate hospitals, Carondelet St. Mary’s and Carondelet St. Joseph’s in Tucson, Arizona, knowingly violated the False Claims Act by overcharging the U.S. Government when it submitted false bills to Medicare and other Federal Health Care programs, and whistleblower, Jacqueline Bloink, formerly employed by the CHN, is entitled to a share of the settlement payment for reporting fraud against the government, which amounts to $6 million.

ARTICLE BY

Whistleblower Practice Group
 
OF 
Tycko & Zavareei LLP

U.S. Sentencing Commission Weighing Recommendation to Increase Criminal Antitrust Penalties

Dickinson Wright Logo

In June, the United States Sentencing Commission, which is appointed by the President to make recommendations to Congress on the criminal penalties for the violation of federal law, issued a request for comments regarding whether the guidelines for calculating antitrust fines should be modified. Currently, corporate fines for cartel price fixing are calculated on a sliding scale, tied to the amount of the “overcharge” imposed by the violators, with the standard maximum fine under the Guidelines for a corporation capped at $100 million and, for an individual, capped at $1 million. The deadline for such comments was July 29, and the views expressed on the issue varied considerably.

Contending that the current Guidelines do not provide an adequate deterrent to antitrust violations, the American Antitrust Institute urged the Commission to recommend an increase in the fines for cartel behavior. The AAI stated that the presumption in the Guidelines that antitrust cartels, on average, “overcharge” consumers for goods by 10% is greatly understated, and thus should be corrected to reflect more accurate levels. Pointing to economic studies and cartel verdicts, the AAI suggests that the median cartel “overcharge” is actually in excess of 20%, and therefore the presumption should be modified in the Guidelines. If adopted, the AAI’s proposal would double the recommended fines under the Guidelines for antitrust violations.

Perhaps surprisingly, the DOJ responded to the Commission’s Notice by stating that it believes that the current fines are sufficient, and that no increase in antitrust fines is warranted at this time. The DOJ indicated that the 10% overcharge presumption provides a “predictable, uniform methodology” for the calculation of fines in most cases, and noted that the Guidelines already permit the DOJ to exceed the fine levels calculated using the 10% overcharge presumption in some circumstances. Specifically, the DOJ noted that the alternative sentencing provisions of 18 USC 3571 already permit it to sidestep the standard guidelines and seek double the gain or loss from the violation where appropriate. Notably, the DOJ utilized this provision in seeking a $1 billion fine from AU Optronics in a 2012 action, although the court declined the request, characterizing it as “excessive”. The court did, however, impose a $500 million fine, an amount well in excess of the cap under the standard antitrust fine guidelines.

Finally, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Douglas Ginsburg and FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright offered a completely different view on the issue in comments that they submitted to the Sentencing Commission. Suggesting that fines imposed on corporations seem to have little deterrent effect, regardless of amount, they encouraged the Commission to instead recommend an increase in the individual criminal penalty provisions for antitrust violations. Notably, they encouraged the Commission not only to consider recommending an increase in the fines to which an individual might be subjected (currently capped at $1 million), but also to recommend an increase in the prescribed range of jail sentences for such conduct (which currently permit for imprisonment of up to 10 years).

The Commission will now weigh these comments and ultimately submit its recommendations to Congress by next May. If any changes are adopted by Congress, they would likely go into effect later next year. Stay tuned.

ARTICLE BY

James M. Burns
 
OF 
Dickinson Wright PLLC