On August 5, two Denso Corp executives were sentenced to over a
year in prison following their guilty plea to participating in a
conspiracy to fix prices in violation of the antitrust laws. Yuji
Suzuki, a former senior manager in the Toyota Parts Division, was
sentenced to 16 months in prison and Hiroshi Watanabe, a former
group leader in the same division, was sentenced to 15 months.
Their conspiracy to rig bids and fix prices involved electronic
control units and heater control panels sold to Toyota Motor
Company. Their part in the conspiracy spanned 3 years.
Previously, two other Denso executives have plead guilty to
antitrust violations. Norihiro Imai, a former assistant manager of
the Toyota Sales Division, was sentenced to 12 months and one day
in prison and a $20,000 fine and Makoto Hattori was sentenced to 14
months in prison and a $20,000 fine. In addition, Denso agreed to
pay $78 million in 2012 to settle the antitrust investigation of
Indeed, the auto parts antitrust investigation has spawned a
number of criminal prosecutions of individuals. For example, six
Yazaki executives were criminally prosecuted receiving sentences
ranging from 14-24 months in prison and fines of $20,000 each and
three Furukawa Electric executives were criminally prosecuted and
received sentences ranging from 12-18 months in prison and a fine
of $20,000 each. To date, the DOJ has garnered guilty pleas from
nine companies and 14 executives.
The DOJ views the prosecution of individuals as one of its best
weapons to deter unlawful conduct. Companies act through their
executives and in cases where the companies have the ability to pay
hefty fines, the threat of prison sentences against individuals may
be a much bigger stick. Attorneys representing individuals in these
cases need to be mindful of this policy incentive. And, companies
under investigation, need to get separate counsel for their
individual executives at the first sign that they may have engaged
in wrongful conduct. Such action will protect both the company and
its individual executives.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In Great Hill Equity Partners IV, LP v. SIG Growth Equity Fund I, LLLP, Chancellor Strine of the Delaware Chancery Court recently reaffirmed that the target company in a Delaware merger is the sole holder of the attorney-client privilege to communications with its counsel and the privilege cannot be claimed by the seller.
The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") recently announced that it will be hosting a two-day workshop in Washington, DC on March 20-21 to examine competition issues related to current developments in the U.S. health care industry.
In a civil antitrust suit, the district court ruled that Apple had conspired with five book publishers to increase the price of e-books for consumers, in a case that sees vertical pricing conduct subject to the per se rule.
On December 18, 2013, the Pennsylvania House Health Committee held a hearing on Pennsylvania House Bills 1621 and 1622, two bills that would require that any health provider in the state that operates as part of an integrated delivery system.