People of New York v. Christopher Kline
Employee of Bert Adams Disposal pleaded guilty to one count of violating the Donnelly Act. According to the indictment, from about July 2014 until May 2016, the company entered into collusive agreements with Taylor Garbage Service to rig bids for waste-hauling, recycling, and related services, and forced customers to pay excessive prices for basic services. The companies conspired through in-person meetings, phone calls, and text messages.According to the plea agreement, over this two-year period, the companies exchanged hundreds of text messages and calls. Their arrangements included, among other methods, the companies agreeing to not pursue the business of each other’s current customers and deciding in advance which company would win a bid,
and agreeing. to submit a deliberately inflated bid or price quote – or not to submit a bid at all – to a customer to ensure the incumbent company would keep the contract. CEO and other employee of the company also pled guilty and paid an additional $117,500 in criminal fines, and company paid $850,000. See also, People v. Bert Adams Disposal, People v. Elbert Adams, People v. Bert J. Adams
People of New York v. Bert J. Adams
Employee of Bert Adams Disposal pleaded guilty to one count of violating the Donnelly Act. According to the indictment, from about July 2014 until May 2016, the company entered into collusive agreements with Taylor Garbage Service to rig bids for waste-hauling, recycling, and related services, and forced customers to pay excessive prices for basic services. The companies conspired through in-person meetings, phone calls, and text messages.According to the plea agreement, over this two-year period, the companies exchanged hundreds of text messages and calls. Their arrangements included, among other methods, the companies agreeing to not pursue the business of each other’s current customers and deciding in advance which company would win a bid,
and agreeing. to submit a deliberately inflated bid or price quote – or not to submit a bid at all – to a customer to ensure the incumbent company would keep the contract. CEO and other employee of the company also pled guilty and paid an additional $117,500 in criminal fines, and company paid $850,000. See also, People v. Bert Adams Disposal, People v. Elbert Adams, People v. Christopher Kline.
People of New York v. Elbert Adams
CEO of Bert Adams Disposal pleaded guilty to one count of violating the Donnelly Act. According to the indictment, from about July 2014 until May 2016, the company entered into collusive agreements with Taylor Garbage Service to rig bids for waste-hauling, recycling, and related services, and forced customers to pay excessive prices for basic services. The companies conspired through in-person meetings, phone calls, and text messages.According to the plea agreement, over this two-year period, the companies exchanged hundreds of text messages and calls. Their arrangements included, among other methods, the companies agreeing to not pursue the business of each other’s current customers and deciding in advance which company would win a bid,
and agreeing. to submit a deliberately inflated bid or price quote – or not to submit a bid at all – to a customer to ensure the incumbent company would keep the contract. Other employees of the company also pled guilty and paid an additional $75,000 in criminal fines, and company paid $850,000. See also, People v. Bert Adams Disposal, People v. Bert J. Adams, People v. Christopher Kline.
People of New York v. Bert Adams Disposal
Company pleaded guilty to one count of violating the Donnelly Act. According to the indictment, from about July 2014 until May 2016, the company entered into collusive agreements with Taylor Garbage Service to rig bids for waste-hauling, recycling, and related services, and forced customers to pay excessive prices for basic services. The companies conspired through in-person meetings, phone calls, and text messages. According to the plea agreement, over this two-year period, the companies exchanged hundreds of text messages and calls. Their arrangements included, among other methods, the companies agreeing to not pursue the business of each other’s current customers and deciding in advance which company would win a bid, and agreeing to submit a deliberately inflated bid or price quote, or not to submit a bid at all, to a customer to ensure the incumbent company would keep the contract. The CEO and employees of the company also pled guilty and paid an additional $150,000 in criminal fines. See also, People v. Bert Adams, People v. Elbert Adams, People v. Christopher Kline.
New York v. Rattenni; 179 A.D.2d 691, 578 N.Y.S.2d 257 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. Jan 13, 1992); app. granted 79 N.Y.2d 1053, 596 N.E.2d 418, 584 N.Y.S.2d 1020 (N.Y. May 21, 1992);aff’d, 81 N.Y.2d 166, 613 N.E.2d 155 (1993)
Defendants entered into a customer allocation agreement and agreed to withdraw from each other’s primary market areas in the waste hauling business in parts of New York and Connecticut.
Utah v. Allied Waste Industries, Inc., No. 2:99-CV00303H
Plaintiff state entered into a consent decree with Allied to ensure that Allied did not use its control of the Washington County landfill to disadvantage competitors. Allied agreed to treat all haulers the same with respect to storage of waste containers, hauling outside normal business hours, inclusion of banned hazardous waste in waste hauled to the landfill. Allied also will not tie the sale of any other services (e.g. recycling) or products to the purchase of commercial waste services from Allied. Allied will not enter into any contracts for a term of more than 2 years, and there shall be no automatic renewal (evergreen) contracts for longer than one year.Allied may not provide any commercial waste-hauling services below cost so long as it has more thatn 60% of commercial small container waste hauling in Washingotn County.
Connecticut v. Galante, No. X04-HHD-CV-09-5033841-S (Ct. Super. Ct. Hartford, April 11, 2011)
In 2009, Connecticut sued James E. Galante, former owner of waste disposal companies operating in the Dan bury area, for alleged violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Connecticut Antitrust Act. The lawsuit alleged that in 2002 and 2004, Galante ordered his employees at AWD and Thomas to raise prices by 10 percent for certain commercial customers under the false representation that they were mandatory increases for disposal-site costs. The lawsuit also alleged two incidents of bid-rigging by American Disposal Services of Connecticut, another Galante-owned company, in attempts to secure waste-hauling contracts. Under terms of the settlement, the state received $600,000 to be distributed to an estimated 500 commercial customers of Galante’s former companies: Automated Waste Disposal, Inc. and Thomas Refuse Services Inc.The settlement was timed to the federal government’s sale of these and other companies forfeited by Galante as part of his 2008 guilty plea to federal racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service and wire-fraud conspiracy for his role in orchestrating a scheme to drive up trash-removal prices.
U.S. and New Jersey v. Waste Management, Inc., No. 1:03CV01409 (D.D.C. 2003)
USDOJ and New Jersey challenged the merger of Waste Management, Inc. and Allied Waste Industries, Inc., the nation’s two largest commercial waste hauling and disposal companies, alleging that the transaction would have resulted in higher prices for waste collection or disposal or both in seven metropolitan areas. The companies agreed to a settlement under which they divested commercial waste hauling and disposal assets in these areas.
U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Republic Services
Two of the three largest waste hauling companies in the U.S. sought to merge. The United States and plaintiff states reached a settlement under which the parties would divest 11 landfills, 8 waste transfer stations and numerous routes within the plaintiff states.
Minnesota v. Waste Management of Minnesota (Ramsey Cty. Dist. Ct. 2008)
Plaintiff State alleged monpolization in three counties as a result of evergreen contract provisions by Waste Management, which had 80-90 percent of the waste hauling market. Waste Management agreed to change its contract renewal terms.
