DOJ Hooks a Big Fish: StarKist Guilty Plea Offers Some Takeaways for GCs
The last of three companies involved, StarKist agreed to plead guilty to a felony charge of price fixing on canned tuna fish, according to documents filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
October 19, 2018 at 04:50 PM
4 minute read
Iconic Charlie the Tuna of advertising fame never seems to learn what the StarKist Co. wants, but Thursday it was the company's turn to learn a costly lesson in what federal antitrust prosecutors want.
The last of three companies involved, StarKist agreed to plead guilty to a felony charge of price fixing on canned tuna fish. It faces a whopping $100 million maximum fine, one to five years of probation and an unidentified amount of restitution, according to documents filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Pittsburgh-based StarKist, a unit of Dongwon Industries, issued a statement saying it had cooperated with the U.S. Department of Justice during the course of its investigation and has accepted responsibility for its conduct.
Company president and CEO Andrew Choe said, “We will continue to conduct our business with the utmost transparency and integrity. While this process is long-term in nature, we have addressed the necessary actions required in this plea agreement, including continuing to strengthen related compliance best practices.”
Terms of the plea deal were not made public, and a sentencing hearing has not yet been scheduled.
Meanwhile, there are some key takeaways for general counsel in the prosecution:
“The dollar value is pretty high,” noted Colin Kass, a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Proskauer Rose and co-chair of the antitrust group. “It shows that the U.S. Department of Justice is continuing to aggressively pursue criminal antitrust cases.”
The StarKist case was part of an industry probe by the Justice Department involving the three largest U.S. sellers of packaged seafood—StarKist, Bumble Bee Foods and Thai Union Group and its U.S. subsidiary, Tri-Union Seafoods, which sells Chicken of the Sea tuna.
Thai Union revealed in 2015 that it had entered DOJ's leniency program and was granted immunity from prosecution in return for disclosing how the collusion worked and who was involved.
Bumble Bee pleaded guilty to one count of price fixing in May 2017, and agreed to pay a $25 million fine that could escalate to $81.5 million in the event that the company is sold to another.
Bumble Bee's CEO was indicted for participating in the conspiracy in May of this year. Three other Bumble Bee executives have already pleaded guilty.
The price-fixing investigation began shortly after Thai Union sought to merge with Bumble Bee in 2014. The price collusion may have come to light during the attempted merger, Kass explained, because “companies produce thousands of pages of documents relating to competition.”
One of the things investigators found was that, while the demand for tuna was dropping over the years and the supply remained plentiful, the three companies were not lowering their prices. Prosecutors also found emails, texts and evidence of communication among the companies.
Kass said the prosecution “reinforces the concept that companies need to be very careful about inter-firm communications.”
The consequences can be very costly, Kass pointed out, not only for an antitrust case that can carry treble damages but also for the civil lawsuits that inevitably follow.
That's what happened here. Several grocery wholesalers and retailers, including Walmart Inc., sued the three companies for millions of dollars in overpayments for the tuna.
Kass advised, “If you are planning to merge, and especially if it is a concentrated industry, it is important to do some level of due diligence on emails and text messages before you file for approval of the merger.”
Otherwise, it could be DOJ saying, “Sorry, Charlie.”
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllContract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
2 minute readHow Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
5 minute readAuditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readDog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1When Police Destroy Property, Is It a 'Taking'? Maybe So, Say Sotomayor, Gorsuch
- 2New York Top Court Says Clickwrap Assent Binds Plaintiff's Personal-Injury Claim to Arbitration in Uber Case
- 3'You Can’t Do a First Draft of Common Sense': Microsoft GC Jon Palmer Talks AI, Litigation, and Leadership
- 4About the Awards: Southeastern Legal Awards Q&A with Regional Managing Editor Michael Marciano
- 5Private Credit Boom: Miami’s Role as a Financial and Litigation Hub
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250