Dr. Ai Deng of Bates White Economic Consulting has been a long time and frequent contributor to Cartel Capers.  He is a leading voice in the area of artificial intelligence and algorithmic collusion.  You can follow him on LinkedIn (here).  HIs most recent post is below:

************************************

 

The European Union just announced proposed rules designed to guarantee protection to whistleblowers who report infringements of EU law.  The proposal requires approval from EU countries and the European Parliament before it can become law. Currently only 10 EU countries offer full protection to whistleblowers.

From the EU Press Release

Brussels, 23 April 2018

Recent scandals such as Dieselgate, Luxleaks, the Panama Papers or the ongoing Cambridge Analytica revelations show that whistleblowers can play an important role in uncovering unlawful activities that damage the public interest and the welfare of our citizens and society.

Today’s proposal will guarantee a high level of protection for whistleblowers who report breaches of EU law by setting new, EU-wide standards. The new law will establish safe channels for reporting both within an organisation and to public authorities. It will also protect whistleblowers against dismissal, demotion and other forms of retaliation and require national authorities to inform citizens and provide training for public authorities on how to deal with whistleblowers.

First Vice-President Frans Timmermans said: “Many recent scandals may never have come to light if insiders hadn’t had the courage to speak out. But those who did took enormous risks. So, if we better protect whistleblowers, we can better detect and prevent harm to the public interest such as fraud, corruption, corporate tax avoidance or damage to people’s health and the environment. There should be no punishment for doing the right thing. In addition, today’s proposals also protect those who act as sources for investigative journalists, helping to ensure that freedom of expression and freedom of the media are defended in Europe.”

Věra Jourová, Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality added: “The new whistleblowers’ protection rules will be a game changer. In the globalised world where the temptation to maximise profit sometimes at the expense of the law is real we need to support people who are ready to take the risk to uncover serious violations of EU law. We owe it to the honest people of Europe.

The European Commission also issued a press release on Whistleblower Protection: Frequently Asked Questions

My former Antitrust Division colleague, Kimberly Justice and I have been advocating strongly for a criminal antitrust whistleblower statute; one that would not only give retaliation protection to whistleblowers but would provide a financial incentive for information that leads to exposure and prosecution of a cartel.  See It’s a Crime There Isn’t an Criminal Antitrust Whistleblower Statute.

One objection I’ve heard to a criminal antitrust whistleblower statute is that a whistleblower statute would undermine the Corporate Leniency program.  I think the truth would be quite the opposite.  Once a whistleblower helps initiate a cartel investigation, the race would be on to be the first company to qualify for leniency.  Also, the fact that a whistleblower could come forward may also increase Type A Corporate Leniency—leniency for a company that self-reports before there is even an investigation. And, in the ideal world (except for those of us who make a living from cartel investigations), the threat of a whistleblower would prevent a cartel from forming in the first place.  This notion was expressed in a Reuters article about the proposed EU legislation (here):

The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) said increasing whistleblower protection will help businesses.

“Companies have to see speak-up as something that would help them manage risks and avoid more serious issues such as violation of law, inappropriate conduct, crime or any type of harms,” ACCA head of corporate governance Jo Iwasaki said.

Thanks for reading.  Bob Connolly

The Competition Commission of India issued a press release stating that it had granted leniency to three dry cell battery manufacturers in a cartel investigation. One of the subject companies, Panasonic, received full 100% leniency. I believe that this may be the first time that a company has received 100% credit for reporting and cooperating in a CCI investigation.  (I invite my friends in India to comment or elaborate.)  Below is an excerpt from the document, and the full press release can be found here.

A hot topic at the ABA Antitrust Section Spring Meeting in DC that I recently attended, and in antitrust in general, is the treatment of employee “no-poach” agreements between companies.  Naked no-poach agreements are illegal schemes wherein companies agree to not solicit or hire each other’s employees.  These per se illegal agreements have, till now, been prosecuted as civil violations.  In October 2016, however, the Antitrust Division and FTC issued joint Guidance to Human Resource Professionals warning that certain no poach agreements may be prosecuted criminally.  Since that time the Antitrust Division has repeated the message that naked no-poach agreements that begin or continue after October 2016 will be treated as any other cartel behavior; meaning the investigation and prosecution will likely be as a criminal violation.  Very recently, the Antitrust Division reached a civil settlement with rail equipment suppliers Knorr-Bremse and Wabtec over allegations of a long-standing agreement to not compete for each other’s employees.  The DOJ press release (here) explained the case was brought civilly because the illegal agreements ended before October 2016. There is more background in prior Cartel Capers posts here and here.

I applaud the Division’s commitment to treat naked no-poach agreement as possible criminal violations. It has puzzled me why employee (input) allocation agreements were ever thought to warrant civil treatment.  To be sure, there are times when an agreement not to hire away another company’s employees may be ancillary to some legitimate integration such as joint research.  You don’t want the other guy to size up your good people and steal them.  But, a naked agreement—I won’t hire away your employees if you won’t hire away mine—is a naked restraint of trade; to my mind just as bad as any customer or supplier allocation scheme.

A glimpse of how this collusion works is explained in an excerpt of a talk by then Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer discussing some of the details of a no-poach agreement between eBay and Intuit as alleged in a 2013 civil case (here):

“The behavior was blatant and egregious.  And the agreements were fully documented in company electronic communications.  In one email, eBay’s senior vice president of HR wrote Meg Whitman complaining that while eBay was adhering to its agreement not to hire Intuit employees, “it is hard to do this when Intuit recruits our folks.”  Turns out that Intuit had sent a recruiting flyer to an eBay employee.  Whitman forwarded that email to Scott Cook asking him to “remind your folks not to send this stuff to eBay people.”  Cook quickly responded with “…Meg my apologies.  I’ll find out how this slip up occurred again….”

Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer Speaks at the Conference Call Regarding the Justice Department’s Settlement with eBay Inc. to End Anticompetitive “No Poach” Hiring Agreements, Thursday, May 1, 2014.

Another graphic example of an employee collusion case is reported in the The Verge, Steve Jobs personally asked Eric Schmidt to stop poaching employees, January 27, 2012 (here)

• Steve Jobs personally emailed Eric Schmidt to ask Google to stop poaching an Apple engineer, and Google responded by arranging to immediately and publicly fire the employee who initiated the call.

• “Mr. Jobs wrote: “I would be very pleased if your recruiting department would stop doing this.”

• Schmidt forwarded Mr. Jobs’s email to undisclosed recipients, writing: “I believe we have a policy of no recruiting from Apple and this is a direct inbound request. Can you get this stopped and let me know why this is happening? I will need to send a response back to Apple quickly so please let me know as soon as you can.”

• Geshuri [a Google executive] told Mr. Schmidt that the employee “who contacted this Apple employee should not have and will be terminated within the hour.” Mr. Geshuri further wrote: “Please extend my apologies as appropriate to Steve Jobs. This was an isolated incident and we will be very careful to make sure this does not happen again.”

• Three days later, Shona Brown, Google’s Senior Vice President for Business Operations, replied to Mr. Geshuri, writing: “Appropriate response, thank you. Please make a public example of this termination with the group.”

This behavior is a particularly damaging form of collusion.  Imagine you are an employee at a high tech, or any firm.  You really don’t like your job.  Maybe it’s the boss you don’t get along with.  Maybe you get lousy assignments; no opportunity for advancement; you think you’re under appreciated, overworked and underpaid (maybe you work at a law firm?).  You’d like to get another job, but your application/resumes go unanswered.  You can’t seem to get any interest from the other big firm in town.  You not only are stuck at the same pay, same boss, same job, but your self-esteem takes a hit too.  (When I was in law school applying for jobs, my roommates and I jokingly made a ‘wall of shame” of all the rejection letters.  But, the disappointment was real).  No-poach agreements are restraints of trade that are very focused on individuals and have a significant impact on their lives.  The harm seems greater to me, and perhaps to a sentencing judge, than a price fixing scheme that inflates prices a small amount, though over perhaps thousands of customers.

Compliance guidance should not just explain the shift in DOJ policy towards naked no-poach agreements, but to explain how these agreements actually and very negatively can affect people’s lives and why they may be prosecuted criminally.  I rarely here the human side of the story emphasized or even mentioned in discussion about 15 U.S..C Section 1 (The Sherman Act); the per se rule versus rule of reason, etc.  Compliance guidance should also be clear about another potential human side to this story—some executive is going to be the first one facing a criminal charge with a possible sentence of up to 10 years in prison for an employee no-poach agreement.

PS.     Since no-poach agreements may be treated criminally by the Antitrust Division, it is important to remember that Corporate Leniency (that also covers cooperating individuals) may be available to the first organization that self-reports.

Thanks for reading.  Bob Connolly

JUSTICE NEWS

Department of Justice

Office of Public Affairs

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Antitrust Division Issues 2018 Annual Newsletter

The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division today issued the 2018 edition of its annual Spring Newsletter on its website. The Newsletter highlights the Antitrust Division’s recent activities and successes on civil and criminal enforcement, international cooperation, and competition advocacy. The Newsletter includes a message from Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim, articles recounting the Antitrust Division’s enforcement actions in the criminal, merger, and civil non-merger areas over the past year, as well as an update on the Division’s international and competition advocacy programs.

“This spring, I have had the opportunity to reflect on my six-month anniversary as Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division, looking back on the important achievements of our career staff and the exciting new developments and announcements still on the horizon,” said Assistant Attorney General Delrahim in his ‘Message from Makan.’ “My goal as Assistant Attorney General is to ensure that the Antitrust Division exercises its power so that the American consumer can reap the rewards of free market competition and innovation.”

The Newsletter highlights these milestones and accomplishments, and features profiles of Division leadership and staff. It can be found at https://www.justice.gov/atr/division-operations/division-update-spring-2018.

Kimberly Justice and I are continuing to write about what we believe is a very important issue in cartel fighting–the passing of criminal antitrust whistleblower legislation.  Below are the opening paragraphs of our latest article on the subject.  The full article, kindly posted by Wolters Kluwer in their Antitrust Law Daily, can be found here.

“The SEC’s wildly successful whistleblower program has returned hundreds of millions of dollars to investors as a result of actionable whistleblower information over the past six years.  The IRS paid one whistleblower more than $100 million for information that helped the government uncover a massive tax evasion scheme and led to a $780 million settlement.  The CFTC predicts that the results of its whistleblower program this year will be “huge.”  The Antitrust Division has paid $0 to whistleblowers and received $0 from cartels exposed by whistleblowers.  Or, as Charlie Brown would say, the Antitrust Division “got a rock.”

There is no cartel whistleblower program and this should change now.  Price-fixing and bid-rigging conspiracies are felonies costing American consumers millions of dollars in the form of artificially high prices.  These fraudulent schemes are particularly suited to exposure by whistleblowers because senior corporate executives frequently use lower level employees (and potential whistleblowers) to carry out the illegal scheme.  The time is right for serious antitrust whistleblower legislation.”

Full article here

Thanks for reading.  If you have any reaction/comment you’d like to share please use the comment section or through LinkedIn (here).

The Antitrust Division, US Department of Justice has put industry on notice since 2016 that naked “no poach” agreements–agreements not to compete for each other’s employees– could be treated as criminal antitrust violations.  In other words “no-poach” employee agreements between competitors will be treated the same as “no-poach” customer agreements between competitors.  The Antitrust Division’s press release stated:  “Under the antitrust laws, no-poach agreements that are naked (i.e., not reasonably necessary for a separate, legitimate business transaction or collaboration) eliminate competition in the same irredeemable way as agreements to fix product prices or allocate customers, which have traditionally been criminally investigated and prosecuted as hardcore cartel conduct.”

In this particular case, the Division reached a civil settlement with rail equipment suppliers Knorr-Bremse and Wabtec over allegations of a long-standing agreement to not compete for each other’s employees.  In October 2016 the Antitrust Division and Federal Trade Commission published Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals and announced that employee “no-poach” agreements that are not tied to some legitimate transaction or collaboration can be prosecuted criminally, like any other traditional naked agreement not to compete.  But, in this case the government brought a civil action, stating, “In an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, the department will pursue as civil violations no-poach agreements that were formed and terminated before those announcements were made.”  The Antitrust Division warned, however, that it still has open civil and criminal investigations into other no-poach agreements in the rail equipment industry as well as in other sectors.  In early 2018 the Division warned that criminal “no-poach” cases were in the pipeline (here).

Some highlights from the Antitrust Division’s press release:

The department’s complaint alleges that:

• Beginning no later than 2009, Knorr and Wabtec reached agreements not to solicit, recruit, hire without prior approval, or otherwise compete with one another for employees. For example, in a letter dated January 28, 2009, a director of Knorr Brake Company wrote to a senior executive at Wabtec’s headquarters, “[Y]ou and I both agreed that our practice of not targeting each other’s personnel is a prudent cause for both companies. As you so accurately put it, ‘we compete in the market.’”
• Beginning no later than 2011, Knorr Brake Company (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Knorr) and Faiveley Transport North America (the U.S. subsidiary of Faiveley before Faiveley was acquired by Wabtec) agreed to get the other’s permission before pursuing each other’s employees. For example, in October 2011, a senior executive at Knorr Brake Company explained that he had a discussion with an executive at Faiveley’s U.S. subsidiary that “resulted in an agreement between us that we do not poach each other’s employees. We agreed to talk if there was one trying to get a job[.]”
• Beginning no later than 2014, Wabtec Passenger Transit, a U.S. business unit of Wabtec, and Faiveley Transport North America similarly agreed not to hire each other’s employees without prior approval. For example, in an e-mail to his colleagues, a Wabtec Passenger Transit executive explained that a candidate for employment “is a good guy, but I don’t want to violate my own agreement with [Faiveley Transport North America].”

Reuters reported that Wabtec said in a statement that it had settled even though it committed no wrongdoing.

“We firmly believe that our recruiting policies have been consistent with the antitrust laws and have in no way diminished competition for talent in the marketplace,” the company said. “We have elected to settle this matter to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation.”

Thanks for reading.

From the Press Release (here):

On April 9, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division will hold a public roundtable discussion to explore the issue of corporate antitrust compliance and its implications for criminal antitrust enforcement policy.

The roundtable will provide a forum for the Antitrust Division to engage with inside and outside corporate counsel, foreign antitrust enforcers, international organization representatives, and other interested parties on the topic of antitrust compliance.  Participants will discuss the role that antitrust compliance programs play in preventing and detecting antitrust violations, and ways to further promote corporate antitrust compliance.  The format of the program will be a series of panel discussions with featured speakers.  Audience participation in the discussions will be encouraged.

The Roundtable will take place in the Great Hall of the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT.  The agenda can be found here.

This should be an interesting and spirited program.  There is some disagreement between enforcers and the defense bar/compliance community about what credit a company should receive for a compliance program if, despite the program, company officials engage in cartel behavior.

For previous posts on antitrust compliance programs see:

https://cartelcapers.com/blog/brent-snyder-explains-antitrust-division-approach-to-credit-for-compliance-programs/

https://cartelcapers.com/blog/senior-antitrust-division-official-comments-on-credit-for-compliance-programs/

https://cartelcapers.com/blog/hitachi-chemical-plea-agreement-part-1-enhancement-compliance-program-condition-probation/

I recommend reading an interview with author David Enrich who wrote a book “The Spider Network:  The Wild Story of a Math Genius, and a Gang of Backstabbing Bankers, And One of The Greatest Scams in Financial History.”  Below are excerpts of comments made by Mr. Enrich during the interview, “What’s Behind One of the Biggest Financial Scams in History.”  The interview appeared on February 19, 2017 in Knoweldge@Wharton.[1]

*************************************

• “The mastermind of the LIBOR scandal was a guy named Tom Hayes, a mildly autistic mathematician who was a star trader at some of the world’s biggest banks.”

 

• “[m]y iPhone buzzed with a text message from a number I didn’t recognize. And it said, “This goes much, much higher than me. Not even the Justice Department knows the full story. I’m willing to talk to you, but I need to make sure I can trust you.” It was Tom Hayes.”

 

• “He felt like he was doing something that was really just false and misleading. And he took solace in the fact that the bosses knew about and generally approved of what he was doing. But as most of us learn from a very early age, just because everyone is doing something bad doesn’t mean it’s OK for you to do something bad yourself. That’s a message that was really lost on an entire generation of people in the financial industry, I think.”

 

• “And prosecutors, instead of going after people at the top of the food chain — the CEOs and business leaders who are responsible for setting the culture at their institution, responsible for in many cases the practices of their institutions — instead of going after those guys, they uniformly went after a small group of relatively low-level people. Don’t get me wrong, Hayes in particular did things that were wrong, he knew they were wrong, or at least should have known they were wrong, and deserves to be punished. But what is crazy to me is that Tom Hayes is currently serving an 11-year sentence in a maximum-security prison. And as far as I can tell, he is the only banker currently in jail for crimes committed during the financial crisis.”

 

• “The thing is, prosecutors do not like to lose cases, so they’ve taken, in general, a very conservative approach to what cases they’re going to bring because they don’t want to gamble on losing. They’ve built up these very impressive win/loss records as prosecutors. Some of them are undefeated. And they boast about that.”

 

• “To me, that’s a really unhealthy sign, because the thing that would scare some of these bank CEOs is not losing some money or losing their jobs; it’s the prospect of being perp-walked in front of TV cameras in handcuffs, or the prospect of possibly losing your liberty in front of a jury of your peers. That is a terrifying thing. To me, the great missed opportunity of the financial crisis was that prosecutors didn’t do that a single time with a CEO or a top executive of any major financial institution. They might have lost those cases, but at least it would have struck some fear in the hearts of people.”

 

• “Again, I’ve developed a lot of sympathy for them [Hayes and his family] and their situation there. I do want to make clear that he is not an innocent victim here. He is someone who was participating, and he was not acting properly. He was acting illegally, and I think deserves to be punished. I just find it galling that he is alone in being punished.”

 

• “My concern is that as memories of these massive penalties [fines] fade and memories of the crisis fade, the pressure is going to return for banks to amp up their profits. As that becomes the priority among shareholders, it’s going to become the priority among senior executives. At that point, the cultural stuff goes out the window, and the No. 1 priority once again becomes just making as much money as quickly as you can.”

 

The book, The Spider Network: The Wild Story of a Math Genius, a Gang of Backstabbing Bankers, and One of the Greatest Scams in Financial History is available on Amazon here.

 

Thanks to my friend Toni Hill who forwarded the Wharton@Knowledge interview to me.  Toni and I worked together in the Philadelphia Field Office of the Antitrust Division on several high profile (and many low-profile but fascinating) cartel cases.

*************************************************

[1]   The Wharton@Knowledge interview recap had this introduction:

David Enrich followed the story while he was working for The Wall Street Journal and got close to the central figure in the scandal — star derivatives trader Tom Hayes. In the book, The Spider Network: The Wild Story of a Math Genius, a Gang of Backstabbing Bankers, and One of the Greatest Scams in Financial History, Enrich, now with The New York Times, shares the tale of this brazen scam on the Knowledge@Wharton show on Sirius XM channel 111.