January 19, 2022

News

News Network

Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim Delivers Remarks at the 47th Annual Conference on International Antitrust Law and Policy and Antitrust Economics Workshops

24 min read

Virtual Event

“Video Killed the Radio Star”*: Promoting a Culture of Innovation

Introduction

Good morning.  Thank you for the introduction and thank you to the Fordham Competition Law Institute for inviting me back to participate in this conference today.  I know first-hand the challenges of hosting virtual international events, and I congratulate you for making this important event possible despite the obstacles.    

I also want to acknowledge and thank Executive Vice President Vestager for her continued contributions to promotes a culture of competition and for the valuable and constructive partnership she and I have had the past three years. We have accomplished a lot, worked civilly though minor disagreements, and have together improved, in my view, the free markets to the benefit of consumers across the globe.

Some of us are old enough to remember that life-changing moment when MTV launched in August 1981.  As you may know, the first video MTV aired was a song by the Buggles called “Video Killed the Radio Star.”  The song is about the transformative power of innovation.  A new form of musical entertainment had arrived on the scene, and radio’s dominance was under a very real threat.  Today, nearly forty years later, MTV’s video stars long since have been killed by the technologies that followed.  The song’s sentiment nonetheless remains as relevant to antitrust policy as ever:  innovation and technology continually are changing markets and the economic landscape, and even creating new industries. 

It is incumbent on competition law enforcers to champion policies that support the incentives for the next generation of “video stars” to emerge.  The pandemic has underscored the

importance of protecting the climate for innovation.  We all are counting on innovations in medical science for the development of strategies to treat and protect infection.

Today, I would like to share some examples of innovations the Antitrust Division has undertaken to ensure that we enforce the antitrust laws in a way that accomplishes the goals of protecting competition and also supporting growth and innovation.  Over the past three years, we have taken a fresh look at the Division’s policies across nearly all aspects of our work to ensure that they accomplish these aims.  That mindset of embracing flexibility and adaptability served us well as we pivoted to telework and pandemic-related competition challenges.  In many ways, the pandemic actually reinforced our perspective that experimenting with new ways of doing things provides opportunities to learn, grow, and ultimately make us better, or as I have noted before “antifragile.” 

Of course, competition law is about protecting a process, not about mandating a particular result. 

In that spirit, we have focused on improving processes that promote and sustain conditions for innovation to thrive, rather than directing specific outcomes in the marketplace.

At the OECD’s Global Forum on Competition last fall, I was struck by some familiar insights of Nobel-prize winning economist Jean Tirole.  He offered some advice to enforcers for tackling the complex issues we all face in the digital space.  He said, “We don’t need more laws.  We need more guidance.”  He called for more “participative antitrust” between competition agencies and stakeholders to consider appropriate enforcement or regulatory approaches to modern competition challenges.  I agree with Professor Tirole that our existing antitrust laws are up to the task of addressing modern competition problems.  Yet, we need to be flexible, self-reflective, and collaborative to ensure that our approach keeps pace with evolving facts and economic wisdom. 

The participative approach has served us well at the Antitrust Division.  In the past three years, we have improved our transparency: we actively have updated guidelines, made speeches, issued business review letters, and submitted amicus briefs to courts in a deliberate effort to share and explain our analytical processes.  Clear guidance helps mitigate the risks innovators and entrepreneurs face when investing resources to develop new products.  Whenever possible, we welcome a wide range of views, including from industry participants, academics, and consumer advocates.  For example, we regularly hold public workshops and post draft guidelines for public comment.  The dialogue that plays out in these fora inevitably leads to better and more thoughtful results.  You may have noticed, I often invite the views of my biggest detractors.

I would now like to share some specific examples of the Division’s efforts to promote innovation, which I will group into four broad categories: (1) better explaining the state of the antitrust laws relating to patent licensing practices; (2) promoting substantive and procedural convergence with our international partners; (3) modernizing our domestic enforcement program; and (4) encouraging innovation within the Antitrust Division itself.  

“New Madison” Approach

I will start with our approach to the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property law.  I first presented an updated and transparent analytical framework last year in an article called The “New Madison” Approach to Antitrust and Intellectual Property Law in the University of Pennsylvania Law School’s Journal of Law and Innovation.

This correctly balanced approach is aimed at ensuring continued innovation and dynamic competition in the context of standard setting.  We have cautioned that antitrust law should not be used as a tool to police contractual commitments to license standard-essential patents on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory, or FRAND, terms.  When licensing negotiations fail, patent owners should have the full range of statutory remedies available to them when their patents are infringed, including injunctions.  At the same time, coordination among members of standards development organizations can raise competition concerns that should not be overlooked.  We have advocated for these principles through speeches, guidance documents, business review letters, and statements of interest as amicus in federal courts.    

I am encouraged that the principles of the New Madison approach continue to gain acceptance not only in U.S. courts, but in international courts as well.  In May, the German Federal Court of Justice issued its decision in Sisvel v. Haier in support of a standard-essential patent holder’s enforcement rights.  In that case, Haier, the potential licensee (or implementer), had been intransigent in negotiations, rejecting Sisvel’s repeated licensing offers but making no offers of its own.  The German high court held that an implementer must take an active role in negotiations and be willing to take on a license on any terms that are FRAND.   

Other German courts have echoed this concern for patent holder rights.  In a decision in early September in a dispute between patent-holder Sharp Corporation and implementer Daimler, a Munich court rejected Daimler’s antitrust-law based defense.  The court granted the Japanese corporation Sharp an injunction against Daimler’s sales of the Mercedes-Benz for infringing Sharp’s patent which is essential to LTE technology.

Likewise, the UK Supreme Court’s decision in August in Unwired Planet v. Huawei aligns closely with the New Madison approach. There, the Court held that SEP holders may be entitled to injunctive relief and are not limited to seeking monetary damages. 

These decisions are important successes reflecting the convergence of legal systems around New Madison principles, and in doing so, promoting innovation. 

International Engagement

This leads me to the topic of international engagement more generally, which has been a key focus of my tenure at the Antitrust Division.  With more than 140 competition agencies around the world, and as mergers and conduct increasingly draw attention from enforcers in multiple jurisdictions, convergence on substantive and procedural approaches is more and more critical.  As the great American innovator Henry Ford once said, “Coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress, and working together is a success.”  We have had many successes over the past several years.

We have worked together as a strong community of international enforcers as we have reacted in real time to the many challenges posed by the pandemic.  Since March, the Division has participated in a number of virtual events hosted by multilateral organizations such as the ICN, OECD, and UNCTAD to compare notes on pandemic responses.  We appreciate the opportunities to learn from others’ experience in these unprecedented times.

We have not neglected other priorities in the meantime.  Promoting greater procedural norms and due process is a prime example.  The International Competition Network’s Framework for Competition Agency Procedures, or the “CAP,” is a huge step forward toward harmonizing due process principles.  When I first announced the initiative in June 2018, at that time called the Multilateral Framework on Procedures (or MFP), I urged competition authorities to go beyond soft commitments and sign on to a multilateral agreement on due process that included meaningful compliance mechanisms.  Less than a year later, that vision was fulfilled when the CAP came into effect through the ICN with 70 founding competition agencies, importantly including authorities in Europe, Canada, and the United States. Through this agreement, we will be more transparent, predictable, and consistent as law enforcers, and we will continue to build trust in our enforcement actions. 

The CAP also represents a remarkable achievement for the ICN, an innovative organization in its own right.  The ICN was launched less than twenty years ago by a group of 15 agencies, including the Antitrust Division.  Today, the ICN has grown to include 138 member agencies from 125 jurisdictions.  It has become an influential force in driving sound policies through recommendations and guidance for its members.  A recent example of the ICN’s meaningful policy work is this year’s Guidance on Enhancing Cross-Border Leniency Cooperation.  The ICN’s influence was on display last month at the ICN 2020 conference hosted by the Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission, which featured spirited discussions on some of the most challenging issues in competition policy. 

The OECD is another important forum for advancing international convergence that enhances innovation for the benefit of consumers.  The Competition Committee’s biannual meetings provide an opportunity for wide-ranging competition policy discussions.  Over the last three years alone, we have addressed the digital economy, intellectual property licensing, labor, education, and fintech markets to name just a few of many topics.  It has been a true privilege for me to chair the Working Party 3 of the Competition Committee, where so much has been accomplished.

Cooperation with respect to specific cases has increased substantially in recent years as the number of jurisdictions active in merger review has grown.  We communicate with our global counterparts on a daily basis.  Last year, we collaborated with at least 25 jurisdictions on cross-border investigations and global cartel enforcement and with 15 international counterparts on merger and civil nonmerger matters. 

There is still work to be done, particularly as agencies around the globe grapple with the challenging issues presented by the digital economy.  At the Antitrust Division, we are continually looking for innovative ways to strengthen international cooperation.  For example, in September, I signed a new competition enforcement Framework among the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission, and competition agencies in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. The Framework provides the basis for future bilateral agreements focused on investigative assistance.     

Innovations in Domestic Enforcement

Back at home, we have launched a number of domestic enforcement initiatives aimed at promoting free markets and a culture of innovation.  

Not surprisingly, over the past seven months, responding to the COVID-19 pandemic has been a key priority.  In March 2020, the Antitrust Division and the FTC announced an expedited process for reviewing and providing guidance relating to collaborations of businesses working to protect the health and safety of Americans during the pandemic. The Division has issued four COVID-19 business review letters through this process.  At the same time, we remain vigilant about combatting anticompetitive behavior by firms seeking to take advantage of the turmoil. 

The pandemic did not sideline other important efforts to rethink and improve our enforcement program.  One such initiative was to withdraw and reconsider the Division’s 2011 guidance on merger remedies.  The DOJ’s modernized Merger Remedies Manual, released in September, reflects our strong preference for structural over behavioral remedies. 

As I have explained before, antitrust enforcement is law enforcement, not regulation.  Behavioral remedies tend to be regulatory in nature, entangling the Division and the courts in the ongoing operation of a market. Such regulatory meddling can require businesses to act counter to their profit-maximizing interests, distort the market, and stifle innovation. 

In a similar vein, we undertook a comprehensive effort to review nearly 1,300 so-called “legacy” judgments, some of which date back to the 1890’s, in our Judgment Termination Initiative.  We filed motions in federal district courts across the country to terminate decrees that were no longer needed to protect competition, and in some cases were potentially harmful to competition.  In a recent case, a federal court terminated the Paramount Consent Decrees, which for over seventy years had regulated how certain movie studios distribute films to movie theatres.  As the Court noted, Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, and It’s a Wonderful Life were the blockbusters when these decrees were litigated.  As a result of this ongoing Initiative, courts have terminated nearly 800 perpetual decrees.  This effort ensures that regulatory decrees do not stand in the way of the free market functioning as it should.  It also frees up the Division’s resources and attention so that we may better focus on protecting competition. 

Another example of our efforts to advance merger policy is the recent update to our guidance on vertical mergers, which we revised for the first time since 1984.  We, along with the FTC, released joint draft Vertical Merger Guidelines in February 2020 and conducted workshops to collect feedback and perspectives from diverse groups.  The revised final Guidelines, issued in June, provide transparency into our approach to evaluating vertical transactions.

Knowing that delays can create business uncertainty and harm innovation, we also took a fresh look at our merger review processes to seek ways to streamline our investigations.  In September 2018, I announced a goal of resolving most investigations within six months of filing, provided that the parties promptly comply with Division requests throughout the entire process.  The Division published a Model Voluntary Request Letter and a Model Timing Agreement to facilitate expeditious cooperation and compliance.

We sought to streamline enforcement actions where possible too.  Earlier this year, the Division made its first ever use of arbitration to resolve the proposed merger of Novelis Inc. and Aleris Corporation. The arbitration proved to be an effective and efficient way to resolve the one dispositive issue in the case, and I expect it will be used again under the right circumstances.

Turning to an innovation in our criminal program, last November, we launched the Procurement Collusion Strike Force, or PCSF, which is an interagency partnership among the Antitrust Division, 13 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, investigators from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and four federal Offices of Inspectors General.  Liaisons from these agencies are working together to deter, detect, and prosecute cartels in government contracting.  It has generated an overwhelmingly positive response from stakeholders.  We have received more than 50 inquiries to PCSF from federal, state, and local government agencies seeking outreach training, assistance with safeguarding their procurement processes.  So far, we have opened nearly two dozen PCSF grand jury investigations in connection with the PCSF.  We just appointed our first ever permanent Director of the PCSF, and we are now searching for a permanent Assistant Director given the overwhelming response.

Promoting a Culture of Innovation Within the Antitrust Division

Finally, I will briefly mention a couple of our efforts to encourage innovative thinking within the Antitrust Division itself.

Technological advancements in recent years have changed virtually every industry within our purview.  In August, I announced a restructuring of our civil program to ensure efficient and effective enforcement that accounts for these changes.  This included a realignment of responsibilities within the civil sections.  We also created an Office of Decree Enforcement and Compliance to dedicate Division personnel to ensuring proactive enforcement of consent decrees. In addition, we created a Civil Conduct Task Force to focus full time on civil non-merger work. 

We are paying close attention to a number of emerging issues, and we are making sure we develop and maintain expertise on cutting-edge issues and developments.  Late last year, we launched a novel program to build our expertise by training some of our attorneys and economists in emerging technologies in the fields of blockchain, machine learning, and artificial intelligence.  It is critical to understand these technologies and their growing business applications.  We have selected this training through MIT’s Sloan School, and so far have trained over 30 of our professional staff, all of whom have had an overwhelmingly positive response to the courses.   

Conclusion

To conclude, the Antitrust Division is committed to ensuring that competition policy remains a force for good in fostering innovation.  Back in 1981, video may have killed the radio star.  In 2020, however, streaming video provides a lifeline for the rest of us to carry on with our lives—from learning, shopping, or enforcing the antitrust laws—in the face of unprecedented physical limitations.  Recent experience has shown the power of technology to improve our quality of life, and also how much we have come to depend on it.  As the Buggles put it, “we can’t rewind, we’ve gone too far.”  There is no way to predict what life-changing, or even life-saving, innovations are on the horizon. We can guarantee that, through vigilance in our role as law enforcers, we will preserve incentives to innovate while promoting the competitive process. 

News Network

  • Utah Man Convicted for Tax Fraud
    In Crime News
    A chiropractor and health-care products business owner was convicted yesterday by a jury in Salt Lake City, Utah, of attempting to evade the payment of his federal income taxes and corruptly endeavoring to impair the administration of the internal revenue laws.
    [Read More…]
  • Virginia Return Preparer Indicted for Evading her Own Taxes and Not Filing Her Returns
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury in Richmond, Virginia, returned an indictment charging a return preparer with tax evasion and failure to file individual income tax returns, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney G. Zachary Terwilliger for the Eastern District of Virginia.
    [Read More…]
  • Defense Management: Improved Planning, Training, and Interagency Collaboration Could Strengthen DOD’s Efforts in Africa
    In U.S GAO News
    When the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) became fully operational in 2008, it inherited well over 100 activities, missions, programs, and exercises from other Department of Defense (DOD) organizations. AFRICOM initially conducted these inherited activities with little change. However, as AFRICOM has matured, it has begun planning and prioritizing activities with its four military service components, special operations command, and task force. Some activities represent a shift from traditional warfighting, requiring collaboration with the Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development, and other interagency partners. GAO's prior work has identified critical steps and practices that help agencies to achieve success. For this report, GAO was asked to assess AFRICOM in five areas with respect to activity planning and implementation. To do so, GAO analyzed DOD and AFRICOM guidance; observed portions of AFRICOM activities; interviewed officials in Europe and Africa; and obtained perspectives from interagency officials, including those at 22 U.S. embassies in Africa.AFRICOM has made progress in developing strategies and engaging interagency partners, and could advance DOD's effort to strengthen the capacity of partner nations in Africa. However, AFRICOM still faces challenges in five areas related to activity planning and implementation. Overcoming these challenges would help AFRICOM with future planning, foster stability and security through improved relationships with African nations, and maximize its effect on the continent. (1) Strategic Planning. AFRICOM has created overarching strategies and led planning meetings, but many specific plans to guide activities have not yet been finalized. For example, AFRICOM has developed a theater strategy and campaign plan but has not completed detailed plans to support its objectives. Also, some priorities of its military service components, special operations command, and task force overlap or differ from each other and from AFRICOM's priorities. Completing plans will help AFRICOM determine whether priorities are aligned across the command and ensure that efforts are appropriate, complementary, and comprehensive. (2) Measuring Effects. AFRICOM is generally not measuring long-term effects of activities. While some capacity-building activities appear to support its mission, federal officials expressed concern that others--such as sponsoring a news Web site in an African region sensitive to the military's presence--may have unintended effects. Without assessing activities, AFRICOM lacks information to evaluate their effectiveness, make informed future planning decisions, and allocate resources. (3) Applying Funds. Some AFRICOM staff have difficulty applying funding sources to activities. DOD has stated that security assistance efforts are constrained by a patchwork of authorities. Limited understanding of various funding sources for activities has resulted in some delayed activities, funds potentially not being used effectively, and African participants being excluded from some activities. (4) Interagency Collaboration. AFRICOM has been coordinating with partners from other federal agencies. As of June 2010, AFRICOM had embedded 27 interagency officials in its headquarters and had 17 offices at U.S. embassies in Africa. However, the command has not fully integrated interagency perspectives early in activity planning or leveraged some embedded interagency staff for their expertise. (5) Building Expertise. AFRICOM staff have made some cultural missteps because they do not fully understand local African customs and may unintentionally burden embassies that must respond to AFRICOM's requests for assistance with activities. Without greater knowledge of these issues, AFRICOM may continue to face difficulties maximizing resources with embassy personnel and building relations with African nations. GAO recommends that AFRICOM complete its strategic plans, conduct long-term activity assessments, fully integrate interagency personnel into activity planning, and develop training to build staff expertise. DOD agreed with the recommendations.
    [Read More…]
  • Texas Sport Supplement Company Owner Pleads Guilty to Unlawful Distribution of Steroid-Like Drugs
    In Crime News
    A former Texas resident and his sport supplement company pleaded guilty today to a felony charge relating to the introduction of unapproved new drugs into interstate commerce, the Department of Justice announced.
    [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Requires Waste Management To Divest Assets In Order To Proceed With Advanced Disposal Services Acquisition
    In Crime News
    The Department of Justice announced today that Waste Management, Inc. (WMI) will be required to divest 15 landfills, 37 transfer stations, 29 hauling locations, over 200 waste collection routes, and other assets in order to proceed with its $4.6 billion acquisition of Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. (ADS).  The department said that without the divestiture, the proposed acquisition would substantially lessen competition for small container commercial waste collection or municipal solid waste disposal services in over 50 local markets.
    [Read More…]
  • Turkey Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
  • On the Anniversary of the Day of Portugal, Camões, and Portuguese Communities
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Warfighter Support: DOD Should Have a More Comprehensive Approach for Addressing Urgent Warfighter Needs
    In U.S GAO News
    This testimony discusses the challenges that the Department of Defense (DOD) faces in fulfilling urgent operational needs identified by our warfighters. Over the course of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. forces have encountered changing adversarial tactics, techniques, and procedures, which challenged DOD to quickly develop and provide new equipment and new capabilities to address evolving threats. Further, U.S. troops faced shortages of critical items, including body armor, tires, and batteries. DOD's goal is to provide solutions as quickly as possible to meet urgent warfighter needs to prevent mission failure or loss of life. To meet its urgent needs, DOD had to look beyond traditional acquisition procedures, expand the use of existing processes, and develop new processes and entities designed to be as responsive as possible to urgent warfighter requests. In addition to requests for equipment from DOD's existing stocks, warfighters have requested new capabilities, such as: technology to counter improvised explosive devices (IED); technology related to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) to provide increased situational awareness; and equipment related to command and control to enhance operations on the battlefield. In meeting urgent needs, it is important for DOD to efficiently use the department's financial resources. DOD has spent billions of dollars over the past several years to address urgent warfighter needs. Our past work on weapons acquisition has shown that the department has often pursued more programs than its resources can support. Additionally, our past work also has shown that DOD has had difficulty translating needs into programs, which often has led to cost growth and delayed delivery of needed capabilities to the warfighter. Today, we are publicly releasing a report that addresses (1) what entities exist within DOD for responding to urgent operational needs, and the extent to which there is fragmentation, overlap, or duplication; (2) the extent to which DOD has a comprehensive approach for managing and overseeing its urgent needs activities; and (3) the extent to which DOD has evaluated the potential for consolidations of its various activities and entities. This statement will first briefly discuss challenges we reported in April 2010 that affected the overall responsiveness of DOD's urgent needs processes and then highlight the key findings and recommendations of today's report. Today's report contributed to our findings in another report being released today that addresses opportunities to reduce potential duplication in government programs.We reported in April 2010 on several challenges that affected DOD's responsiveness to urgent needs: (1) Training: We found challenges in training personnel that process urgent needs requests. For example, we found that while the Army required selected officers to attend training on how to address requirements and identify resources for Army forces, officers at the brigade level responsible for drafting and submitting Army and joint urgent needs requests--and those at the division level responsible for reviewing the requests prior to submission for headquarters approval--were not likely to receive such training.(2) Funding: We found that funding was not always available when needed to acquire and field solutions to joint urgent needs. This result occurred in part because the Office of the Secretary of Defense had not given any one organization primary responsibility for determining when to implement the department's statutory rapid acquisition authority or to execute timely funding decisions. (3) Technical maturity and complexity: We found that attempts to meet urgent needs with immature technologies or with solutions that are technologically complex could lead to longer time frames for fielding solutions to urgent needs. Also, we found that DOD guidance was unclear about who is responsible for determining whether technologically complex solutions fall within the scope of DOD's urgent needs processes. In our report being released today, we identified cases of fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication of efforts of DOD's urgent needs processes and entities. However, the department is hindered in its ability to identify key improvements to its urgent needs processes because it does not have a comprehensive approach to manage and oversee the breadth of its efforts. Many of these entities were created, in part, because the department had not anticipated the accelerated pace of change in enemy tactics and techniques that ultimately heightened the need for a rapid response to the large number of urgent needs requests submitted by the combatant commands and military services. While many entities started as ad hoc organizations, several have been permanently established. DOD has taken some steps to improve its fulfillment of urgent needs. These steps include developing policy to guide joint urgent need efforts, establishing a Rapid Fielding Directorate to rapidly transition innovative concepts into critical capabilities, and working to establish a senior oversight council to help synchronize DOD's efforts. Despite these actions, the department does not have a comprehensive approach to manage and oversee the breadth of its activities to address capability gaps identified by warfighters in-theater. In addition to not having a comprehensive approach for managing and overseeing its urgent needs efforts, DOD has not conducted a comprehensive evaluation of its urgent needs processes and entities to identify opportunities for consolidation. Given the overlap and potential for duplication we identified, coupled with similar concerns raised by other studies, there may be opportunities for DOD to further improve its urgent needs processes through consolidation. In the report we publicly release today, we make several recommendations to promote a more comprehensive approach to planning, management, and oversight of DOD's fulfillment of urgent needs. In summary, we are recommending that: (1) DOD develop and promulgate DOD-wide guidance across all urgent needs processes that establishes baseline policy for the fulfillment of urgent needs, clearly defines common terms, roles, responsibilities, and authorities, designates a focal point to lead DOD's urgent needs efforts, and directs the DOD components to establish minimum urgent needs processes and requirements; and (2) DOD's Chief Management Officer evaluate potential options for consolidation to reduce overlap, duplication, and fragmentation, and take appropriate action.
    [Read More…]
  • Florida Corporation and Executives Plead Guilty to Conspiracy to Sell Anabolic Steroids and Unlawful Dietary Supplements
    In Crime News
    Blackstone Labs LLC (“Blackstone”) and two of its executives pleaded guilty to conspiring to sell illegal anabolic steroids and other unlawful products marketed as dietary supplements, the Justice Department announced.  
    [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Requires Divestiture of Tufts Health Freedom Plan in Order for Harvard Pilgrim and Health Plan Holdings to Proceed With Merger
    In Crime News
    The Department of Justice announced today that it would require Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (Harvard Pilgrim) and Health Plan Holdings (fka Tufts Health Plan) to divest Tufts Health Freedom Plan Inc. (Tufts Freedom), in order to proceed with their merger. Tufts Freedom is Health Plan Holdings’ commercial health insurance business in New Hampshire. The department has approved UnitedHealth Group Inc. (United), as the buyer. Health insurance is an integral part of the American healthcare system, and the proposed settlement will maintain competition for the sale of commercial health insurance to private employers in New Hampshire with fewer than 100 employees.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken at OECD Opening and Keynote Address
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Appointment of Ambassador Daniel Smith as Chargé d’Affaires at Embassy New Delhi  
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Coordinator for Counterterrorism Ambassador Sales Travels to Mozambique and South Africa
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Chinese Energy Company, U.S. Oil & Gas Affiliate and Chinese National Indicted for Theft of Trade Secrets
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury has returned an indictment alleging corporate entities conspired to steal technology from a Houston-area oil & gas manufacturer, announced U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick and Assistant Attorney General John C. Demers of the Department of Justice’s National Security Division. Jason Energy Technologies Co. (JET) in Yantai, People’s Republic of China; Jason Oil and Gas Equipment LLC (JOG) USA and Chinese national Lei Gao aka Jason Gao, 45, are charged with conspiracy, theft of trade secrets and attempted theft of trade secrets. 
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Call with Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Al-Sabah
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Company’s Vice President Pleads Guilty to Negligently Releasing Asbestos
    In Crime News
    A New York man pleaded guilty today to negligently releasing asbestos and thereby exposing victims to an increased risk of death or serious bodily injury.
    [Read More…]
  • Anti-Money Laundering: FinCEN Should Enhance Procedures for Implementing and Evaluating Geographic Targeting Orders
    In U.S GAO News
    To combat money laundering, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a geographic targeting order (GTO) in 2016 that required title insurers to report information on certain all-cash purchases of residential real estate by legal entities in specified areas. According to FinCEN analysis, the use of legal entities to purchase high-value real estate, particularly in certain U.S. cities, was prone to abuse. FinCEN determined that imposing the real estate GTO reporting requirements on title insurers would cover a large number of transactions without unnecessary complexity. FinCEN renewed the real estate GTO multiple times—finding it has yielded information useful to law enforcement investigations—and periodically expanded the types of monetary instruments and geographic areas included and decreased the price reporting threshold (see fig.). Issuance and Renewals of the Real Estate Geographic Targeting Order (GTO) Unlike prior GTOs, which FinCEN officials said they issued at the request of and with the involvement of law enforcement agencies, FinCEN issued the real estate GTO on its own initiative. Thus, FinCEN had to take the lead in implementing and evaluating the GTO but lacked detailed documented procedures to help direct the GTO's implementation and evaluation—contributing to oversight, outreach, and evaluation weaknesses. For example, FinCEN did not begin examining its first title insurer for compliance until more than 3 years after issuing the GTO and did not assess whether insurers were filing all required reports. Similarly, while FinCEN initially coordinated with some law enforcement agencies, it did not implement a systematic approach for outreach to all potentially relevant law enforcement agencies until more than 2 years after issuing the GTO. FinCEN also has not yet completed an evaluation of the GTO to determine whether it should address money laundering risks in residential real estate through a regulatory tool more permanent than the GTO, such as a rulemaking. Strengthening its procedures for self-initiated GTOs should help FinCEN more effectively and efficiently implement and manage them as an anti-money laundering tool. Bad actors seeking to launder money can use legal entities, such as shell companies, to buy real estate without a loan. Doing so potentially can conceal the identities of bad actors and avoid banks' anti-money laundering programs. To better understand this risk and help law enforcement investigate money laundering, FinCEN issued its real estate GTO. Although GTOs are limited to 180 days, they may be renewed if FinCEN finds reasonable grounds for doing so. Because of concerns about the potential for bad actors to exploit regulatory gaps to launder money through the U.S. real estate market, GAO was asked to review FinCEN's real estate GTO. This report examines, among other things, the GTO's issuance and renewal, oversight, outreach, and evaluation. GAO reviewed FinCEN's records, orders, and policies and procedures; laws and regulations; and studies and other related materials. GAO also interviewed FinCEN, federal law enforcement agencies, and other stakeholders. GAO recommends that FinCEN provide additional direction for self-initiated GTOs, including how to plan for oversight, outreach, and evaluation. FinCEN concurred with GAO's recommendation. For more information, contact Michael E. Clements, (202) 512-8678, ClementsM@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • AAR Corp. Agrees to Pay $11 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations on Aircraft Maintenance Contract and to Pay Penalties Assessed by the FAA
    In Crime News
    AAR Corp., located in Wood Dale, Illinois, and its subsidiary, AAR Airlift Group Inc. (Airlift), located in Melbourne, Florida, have agreed to pay the United States $11,088,000 to resolve False Claims Act allegations in connection with aircraft maintenance services performed by Airlift on two U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) contracts. 
    [Read More…]
  • Man Pleads Guilty to Stealing Nude Photos of Dozens of Victims
    In Crime News
    A New York man pleaded guilty Monday to computer fraud and aggravated identity theft related to his hacking of online social media accounts and theft of nude images of dozens of female victims.
    [Read More…]
  • Warfighter Support: Army’s and Defense Logistics Agency’s Approach for Awarding Contracts for the Army Combat Shirt
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO FoundDuring the fiscal year 2007-12 timeframe, the Army applied statutory and regulatory requirements related to procurement for supplies to award contracts for the Army Combat Shirt. The Army applied these requirements, including those in the Federal Acquisition Regulation and Small Business Regulations, to award the following groups of contracts and to respond to demand for the combat shirt and the supply of manufacturers that could produce it:contracts awarded on a sole-source basis to 8(a) firms owned by an ANC or anIndian tribe in fiscal years 2007 and 2008 to respond to the urgent need for combat shirts because of an increase in warfighters being burned by improvised explosive devices in theater.contracts awarded to NIB and NISH nonprofit agencies representing industries for the blind and severely disabled, respectively, in fiscal years 2009 through 2012 to respond to the increasing demand for the combat shirts and the limited capacity of the 8(a) firms that were manufacturing the combat shirts under the existing sole-source contracts.a contract awarded on a competitive basis to an 8(a), ANC-owned firm in fiscal year 2011 to respond to the need for an additional source of supply to manufacture the combat shirts and to introduce competition as a means of reducing cost of the combat shirt.Since fiscal year 2011, DLA has been responsible for sustainment contracts for the Army Combat Shirt. According to DLA contracting officials, DLA plans to award contracts by March 2013 by applying statutory and regulatory procurement requirements, including the Federal Acquisition Regulation and Small Business Regulations.Why GAO Did This StudyFlame-resistant clothing has been typically used by warfighters to protect them in situations where they face serious exposure to fire or incendiary devices. Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, Department of Defense (DOD) personnel wearing flame-resistant clothing were mainly aviators, fuel handlers, and combat-vehicle crewmembers. However, with the growing prevalence of improvised explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan, warfighters serving there have been exposed more frequently to the risk of fire-related injuries. To provide warfighters deploying into combat areas (including Iraq and Afghanistan) with a garment that can mitigate the risk of sustaining fire-related injuries, the Army procured the Army Combat Shirt, which is a flame-resistant, moisture-wicking shirt designed specifically to protect warfighters against burns and provide maximum comfort as well. Through the Army Program Executive Office Soldier-- the program manager responsible for the initial procurement of the Army Combat Shirt--the Army began procuring this shirt in fiscal year 2007 and through fiscal year 2012 has awarded over $310 million in contracts for the combat shirt. These contracts have been awarded to 8(a) firms and to the National Industries for the Blind (NIB) and NISH nonprofit agencies. Beginning in fiscal year 2011, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) assumed responsibility for sustainment contracting of the Army Combat Shirt and began the process of soliciting proposals and awarding contracts for the combat shirts. Transferring clothing and textile program functions from a military service to DLA is part of DOD's process for managing the life cycle of the procurement of supplies. This report addresses a Congressional request that GAO examine the approach that the Army used to award contracts for the Army Combat Shirt and that DLA is using to prepare to award future ones.For more information, contact Cary B. Russell at (202)512-5431 or russellc@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]

Crime

Network News © 2005 Area.Control.Network™ All rights reserved.