• Your favorite








    , and
  • Court-Appointed Antitrust Monitor Details his Experience with Apple Thus Far

    In an 11-page document filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, the court-appointed antitrust monitor Michael Bromwich, who is tasked with overseeing Apple’s e-book pricing activities as a result of the DoJ’s price-fixing trial, detailed his experience with Apple’s legal team, executives, board members and even the public.
    He started out with a brief background on his appointment to the Apple case, including previous experience with three separate corporate and government monitoring assignments. He points to those repeatedly throughout the declaration, which was filed with the numerous emails from Apple’s representation and senior executives.

    While describing the last two months, Bromwich offers multiple examples of what he considers to be unwillingness on Apple’s part to facilitate a smooth operation. Backed up with several emails from apple’s senior director for competition law and policy Kyle Andeer, the monitor notes multiple instances in which repeated interview requests with board members and senior executives were rebuffed. Bromwich said he was “never waited as long as a month” for such meetings.

    Bromwich claims that Andeer said Apple was concerned with allowing interviews as executives were upset over the court’s ruling and would “never get over the case,” expressing that the monitor and his team would be seeing “a lot of anger” within the company.

    As of right now, Apple has granted interviews with 11 people for a combined total of 13 hours. Of the interviewers, only one was a requested board member while others were lawyers rather than “business people.” In addition Bromwich, questions Apple’s insistence on conducting interviews at a satellite location in Sunnyvale, California and not the Company headquarters. Bromwich wrote the following about the matter:

    This is far less access than I have ever received during a comparable period of time in the three other monitorships I have conducted.
    The monitor continues to complain that requested materials have not been provided in a timely or satisfactory manner. Apple’s general counsel and senior vice president of legal and government affairs, Bruce Sewell, described the task as calling for “voluminous historical documents” of which 303 pages are provided. Bromwich even went as far as saying that the production is an incomplete response to his request.

    Bromwich’s filing comes the same day as plaintiffs’ filed their opposition to Apple’s motion to stay the investigation pending appeal of US. District Court Judge Denise Cote’s ruling. In that filing, the DoJ and states attorney general move to deny the stay citing public interest in preventing further antitrust violations that could be conducted by an unmonitored Apple.

    For those of you who didn’t know, Apple has been at odds with Bromwich since the former Justice Department Inspector General’s assignment, saying the monitor is overstepping his bounds by making unreasonable requests while requiring $138,000 for two weeks’ worth of work.

    Bromwich’s declaration can be found in the source link for those of you who are interested in learning more about the situation.

    Source: Scribd via AppleInsider
    This article was originally published in forum thread: Court-Appointed Antitrust Monitor Details his Experience with Apple Thus Far started by Akshay Masand View original post