Michigan v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.
Chesapeake and Encana were charged with bid-rigging of oil and gas leases on public and private lands. Encana settled the charges. the Attorney General alleged that the two companies had agreed to split up the Michigan counties and each company would be an exclusive bidder in one county. the price of oil and gas leases dropped from $1510 per acre to $40 per acre in six months. The two counts of the indictment relate to one contract or conspiracy in restraint of commerce allegedly occuring between May – June 2010 with regard to private landowners; and a second allegedly occurring between August – October 2010 with regard to the State of Michigan’s oil and gas lease auction. Attorney General reached a settlement with Chesapeake after several days of trial. Chesapeake agreed to pay $25 million and plead no contest to one count each of criminal attempted antitrust violations and false pretenses, both misdemeanors. There was a delayed sentencing agreement under which the charges would be dismissed if Chesapeake abides by the agreements for 11 months.
Michigan v. Encana Corp.
Encana and Chesapeake Energy Corp. allegedly collaborated to avoid bidding against each other in Michigan public auctions for oil and gas leases.. the price of the leases fell from $1510 per acre to less than $40 an acre in six months. Encana entered into a settlement and entered a no contest plea to criminal attempted antitrust violation, a misdemeanor, with an 11-month delayed sentence. If Encana abides by the terms of the plea agreement, the criminal case will be dismissed after 11 months. Encana also agreed to pay $5 million civil settlement ($2.5 million to the Dept. of Natural Resources, $2.5 million to the state’s antitrust activities. The company also entered into a 4-year corporate Integrity Agreement.
People of the State of New York v. Lynch, Maggio, Rivera, Wiesner
Defendants, government officials and executives at private companies, engaged in an ongoing bid-rigging scheme to rig the bids o fcertain local development corporation contracts in Monroe County New York. The scheme included funneling contracts to favored entities, creating fake contracts, inflating subcontracts and submitting false invoices. Participants also laundered the proceeds through payments for their personal benefit, payments relating to golf, and political payments.
Commonwealth v. Suzenski, Crim. Complaint No. 36-595
The Pennsylvania Attorney General charged 8 men with a “pay to play” scheme involving contracts with the Pennsylvania Turnpike Authority. Defendant Suzenski is the owner of Commonwealth Consulting Services, Inc. and a partial owner of Twin County Construction. Commonwealth Consulting Services represents long-term vendors with the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. Suzenski lavishly entertained Hatalowich, Rubin, and others at the expense of his
clients in an effort to influence the awarding of
Turnpike work to both entities, as well as to directly benefit himself. The grand jury found that the eight individuals committed and attempted to commit illegal bid-rigging, commercial bribery, conflict of interest, theft by unlawful taking, theft by deception, criminal conspiracy and acting as a corrupt organization engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity.
Commonwealth v. Miller, Crim. Comp. No. 36-595
The Pennsylvania Attorney General charged 8 men with a “pay to play” scheme involving contracts with the Pennsylvania Turnpike Authority. Miller is VP of State and Local Government and Education for Ciber, a contractor with the Pennsylvania Turnpick Authority. He allegedlly used his relationshipi with the Turnpike’s CIO to improperly influence the contracting process and duplicated and created unnecessary work billed to the Turnpike. The grand jury found that the eight individuals committed and attempted to commit illegal bid-rigging, commercial bribery, conflict of interest, theft by unlawful taking, theft by deception, criminal conspiracy and acting as a corrupt organization engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity.
Commonwealth v. Hatalowich, Crim. Indictment No. 36-595 (Mar. 13, 2013)
The Pennsylvania Attorney General charged 8 men with a “pay to play” scheme involving contracts with the Pennsylvania Turnpike Authority. George Hatalowich is the former Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) and former Contracts Administrator of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. Hatalowich took direction from Turnpike Chairman Rubin and Turnpike CEO Brimmeier, and exerted tremendous influence over the internal processes at the Turnpike, resulting in the award of Turnpike contracts to those vendors favored by certain Senate officials. The grand jury found that the eight individuals committed and attempted to commit illegal bid-rigging, commercial bribery, conflict of interest, theft by unlawful taking, theft by deception, criminal conspiracy and acting as a corrupt organization engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity.
Commonwealth v. Brimmeier, Crim. Indictment No. 36-595 (Mar. 13, 2013)
The Pennsylvania Attorney General charged 8 men with a “pay to play” scheme involving contracts with the Pennsylvania Turnpike Authority. Defendant Joseph Brimmeier is the former Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. Brimmeier was involved in all major decisions at the Turnpike. In addition, Brimmeier took orders directly from Senator Mellow, or his Chief of Staff, concerning the awarding of Turnpike contracts to particular vendors, and political fundraising efforts required of Turnpike personnel and Turnpike vendors. The grand jury found that the eight individuals committed and attempted to commit illegal bid-rigging, commercial bribery, conflict of interest, theft by unlawful taking, theft by deception, criminal conspiracy and acting as a corrupt organization engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity.
Commonwealth v. Rubin, Crim. Comp. No. 36-595 (Mar. 13, 2013)
The Pennsylvania Attorney General charged 8 men with a “pay to play” scheme involving contracts with the Pennsylvania Turnpike Authority. Defendant Rubin was the head of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Authority. The Grand Jury report alleged that Rubin influenced contracting decisions made by executive staff at the Turnpike and regularly
advocated that campaign contributions be made by Turnpike vendors to a certain state senator and other state officials. In addition, Rubin personally benefitted financially from Turnpike work he
steered to City Line Abstract Company. The grand juryy found that the eight individuals committed and ateempted to commit illegal bid-rigging, commercial bribery, conflict of interest, theft by unlawful taking, theft by deception, criminal conspiracy and acting as a corrupt organization engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity.
Commonwealth v. Mellow, Complaint No. 36-595 (Mar. 13, 2013)
The Pennsylvania Attorney General charged 8 men with a “pay to play” scheme involving contracts with the Pennsylvania Turnpike Authority. Defendant Mellow was the Democratic leader of the state Senate. The Grand Jury report alleged that he was actively involved in steering Turnpike contracts to particular vendors, imposting fundarising participation on Turnpike executive staff and Turnpike vendors, and personally benefiting from sports entertainment paid for by a significant vendor with the Turnpike.
People of Ohio v. Quattro
In the first case in nearly three decades involving criminal antitrust charges under Ohio’s Valentine Act, a supplier of traffic control devices pleaded guilty to two felony counts in connection with bids submitted to the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). Quattro, Inc. pleaded guilty to one count of entering into an unlawful combination, contract, or agreement with the intent to limit or fix the price and one count of attempting to engage in a pattern of corrupt activity. Quattro submitted multiple quotes from itself and several related companies to meet ODOT’s required number of quotes and give an appearance of competition. Quattro also worked with an unnamed co-conspirator to submit prearranged quotes for traffic control devices. Quattro paid $32,800 in restitution to ODOT and $10,000 to the state, and agreed to continue cooperating with the investigation.
