Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Eighth Circuit Affirms Longest Antitrust Sentences Ever Imposed
On April 27, 2012, the Eighth Circuit affirmed a 48-month prison sentence and $829,715.85 fine imposed upon Steven VandeBrake after he pleaded guilty to two counts of price fixing and one count of bid rigging in violation of 15 U.S.C. ' 1. United States v. VandeBrake, —F.3d —, 2012 WL 1448486 (April 27, 2012). The sentence was based on VandeBrake's role in a bid rigging conspiracy involving the sale of concrete products in Iowa, which was reported by a competitor in 2009 as part of the DOJ Antitrust Division's Leniency Program. *1. VandeBrake initially accepted a binding plea agreement that would have required him to serve 19 months in prison and pay a fine of $100,000 for his role in the conspiracy. *2. However, when the District Judge indicated that he was not inclined to accept the binding agreement, VandeBrake accepted a non-binding agreement. Id.
The District Judge ultimately imposed a 48-month sentence and $829,715.85 fine, representing a significant departure from the advisory sentencing guidelines and apparently the longest antitrust sentence ever imposed. Id. In support of this departure, the District Judge cited a policy disagreement with the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) as well as VandeBrake's lack of remorse. In communicating its policy concerns, the district court focused on the fact that the offense levels for fraud violations under the USSG have increased far more rapidly than the offense levels for antitrust violations. According to the district court, the Sentencing Commission's stated reasons for this divergence (that the level of mark up from an antitrust violation may tend to decline with the volume of commerce involved) are without merit and are not borne out by the facts in the case against VandeBrake. Furthermore, the district court found that the guidelines fine range was “woefully inadequate” in this case, based on the losses involved as well as the need to impose a sufficiently punitive fine given VandeBrake's substantial personal wealth. *4.
On appeal, VandeBrake contended that the district court abused its discretion in not accepting the initial, binding plea agreement and, furthermore, that the prison sentence and fine imposed were substantively unreasonable. *5. The circuit court declined to consider VandeBrake's argument regarding acceptance of the initial plea agreement, holding that such claims were waived by his later unconditional guilty plea. With respect to the reasonableness of the sentence, the circuit court held that the district court appropriately based its decision “on the particular facts of an individual case,” in that the district court found that the Sentencing Commission's stated policy reasons for not increasing the offense level in line with the offense levels for fraud offenses did not apply in VandeBrake's case.
The circuit court affirmed the judgment, holding that both the prison sentence and the fine were based on appropriate consideration of sentencing factors and were substantively reasonable.
Eighth Circuit Affirms Longest Antitrust Sentences Ever Imposed
On April 27, 2012, the Eighth Circuit affirmed a 48-month prison sentence and $829,715.85 fine imposed upon Steven VandeBrake after he pleaded guilty to two counts of price fixing and one count of bid rigging in violation of 15 U.S.C. ' 1. United States v. VandeBrake, —F.3d —, 2012 WL 1448486 (April 27, 2012). The sentence was based on VandeBrake's role in a bid rigging conspiracy involving the sale of concrete products in Iowa, which was reported by a competitor in 2009 as part of the DOJ Antitrust Division's Leniency Program. *1. VandeBrake initially accepted a binding plea agreement that would have required him to serve 19 months in prison and pay a fine of $100,000 for his role in the conspiracy. *2. However, when the District Judge indicated that he was not inclined to accept the binding agreement, VandeBrake accepted a non-binding agreement. Id.
The District Judge ultimately imposed a 48-month sentence and $829,715.85 fine, representing a significant departure from the advisory sentencing guidelines and apparently the longest antitrust sentence ever imposed. Id. In support of this departure, the District Judge cited a policy disagreement with the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) as well as VandeBrake's lack of remorse. In communicating its policy concerns, the district court focused on the fact that the offense levels for fraud violations under the USSG have increased far more rapidly than the offense levels for antitrust violations. According to the district court, the Sentencing Commission's stated reasons for this divergence (that the level of mark up from an antitrust violation may tend to decline with the volume of commerce involved) are without merit and are not borne out by the facts in the case against VandeBrake. Furthermore, the district court found that the guidelines fine range was “woefully inadequate” in this case, based on the losses involved as well as the need to impose a sufficiently punitive fine given VandeBrake's substantial personal wealth. *4.
On appeal, VandeBrake contended that the district court abused its discretion in not accepting the initial, binding plea agreement and, furthermore, that the prison sentence and fine imposed were substantively unreasonable. *5. The circuit court declined to consider VandeBrake's argument regarding acceptance of the initial plea agreement, holding that such claims were waived by his later unconditional guilty plea. With respect to the reasonableness of the sentence, the circuit court held that the district court appropriately based its decision “on the particular facts of an individual case,” in that the district court found that the Sentencing Commission's stated policy reasons for not increasing the offense level in line with the offense levels for fraud offenses did not apply in VandeBrake's case.
The circuit court affirmed the judgment, holding that both the prison sentence and the fine were based on appropriate consideration of sentencing factors and were substantively reasonable.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
What Law Firms Need to Know Before Trusting AI Systems with Confidential Information In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.