DOJ Antitrust Chief Claims Time Warner Lawyer Issued Threats in Merger Meeting
The threat claim leveled by the DOJ attorneys was contradicted, however, in a declaration from William Barr, a Time Warner board member who served in the 1990s as U.S. attorney general.
October 12, 2018 at 02:21 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Time Warner's chief legal officer berated and made threatening gestures and remarks toward U.S. Department of Justice lawyers during a November 2017 meeting over the media company's proposed merger with AT&T, according to declarations filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The government lawyers' claim was contradicted, however, in a declaration from William Barr, a Time Warner board member who served in the 1990s as U.S. attorney general.
Included in a court filing made public Thursday were declarations by Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim and his deputy, Andrew Finch, stating that Paul T. Cappuccio, who attended the meeting as Time Warner's chief legal officer, intimated that he would cause problems for the Antitrust Division if they were to pursue their case against the merger between AT&T and Time Warner.
The exchange of declarations came in a case captioned United States v. AT&T assigned to U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon of the District of Columbia.
Cappuccio is now executive vice president of industry policy and government affairs for WarnerMedia. He has not offered a declaration in the court case.
Delrahim stated in his own declaration that Cappuccio, who was Time Warner's chief legal officer at the time, made hostile remarks following the meeting's conclusion.
“Mr. Cappuccio stood up from his seat at the conference table, wagged his finger at me, and said that if the Antitrust Division goes through with this, the case will be 'a sh*tshow like you've never seen,'” Delrahim stated.
Cappuccio allegedly compared said rhetorical “sh*tshow” to media firestorms such as those surrounding the late Teamsters boss “Jimmy Hoffa and the firing of Jim Comey” as FBI chief by President Donald Trump.
But Barr, in his own declaration to the court, offered a different account of the meeting.
Barr, a Time Warner board member, contradicted Delrahim's recollection of some elements of Cappuccio's behavior. Barr, who served as U.S. attorney general from 1991 to 1993 under President George H.W. Bush, had been described by Delrahim as “uncomfortable” following Cappuccio's purported outburst.
But Barr did not characterize Cappuccio as having had an outburst.
“Mr. Cappuccio did not stand up and wag his finger at Mr. Delrahim and I do not recall any references to either James Comey or Jimmy Hoffa,” Barr said, describing the Justice Department official's recollections as “incorrect.”
“No reasonable person could have misinterpreted Mr. Cappuccio's comments as a threat that the companies would personally attack Mr. Delrahim or anyone else in the event of litigation,” Barr stated.
Delrahim said he interpreted the GC's comments as threatening.
“I interpreted Mr. Cappuccio's comments to mean that if we brought this enforcement action, defendants would employ personal attacks to denigrate the integrity of the Antitrust Division and myself,” Delrahim continued. “As assistant attorney general, my role is to improve the institution and preserve its integrity. Political influence has no place in the Antitrust Division's review of proposed acquisitions, and it had no role in the Antitrust Division's decisions regarding the transaction.”
Read the filing from the DOJ's case against AT&T and Time Warner's merger: [falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
Finch's declaration corroborates Delrahim's account of the meeting.
The Justice Department is currently appealing a judge's June 12 decision to allow AT&T to proceed with its acquisition of Time Warner.
In a statement, an AT&T spokesman said the company's opinion of the government's lawsuit is “no secret.”
“We appreciate former Attorney General Barr stepping forward to provide his first-hand account of DOJ's interactions with us in the days prior to filing suit,” the statement said.
Lead attorney for the government in the case is Craig Conrath, the director of litigation for the Antitrust Division.
Listed as lead counsel for Time Warner in the matter was Christine A. Varney of Cravath, Swaine & Moore in New York.
Listed as representing AT&T in the case were Kenneth M. Fetterman and Aaron M. Panner, both of Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick in Washington; and Katrina M. Robson of O'Melveny & Myers in Washington.
Read more:
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 AllLitigators of the (Past) Week: Tackling a $4.7 Billion Verdict Post-Trial for the NFL in 'Sunday Ticket' Antitrust Litigation
Take-Two's Pete Welch on 'Getting the Best Results While Getting in the Way the Least'
Litigators of the Week: Kirkland Beats Videogame Copyright Claim From Lebron James' Tattoo Artist
Trending Stories
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