Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
Nos. 04-4752, 04-4876, 04-4877
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT_______________UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appelleev.GOSSELIN WORLD WIDE MOVING N.V. and THE PASHA GROUP,Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants_______________ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA_______________REPLY BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS APPELLANT ANDANSWERING BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS CROSS-APPELLEER. HEWITT PATEAssistant Attorney GeneralMAKAN DELRAHIMDeputy Assistant Attorney GeneralHAYS GOREY, JR.JOHN J. POWERS, IIIMARK W. PLETCHERANDREA LIMMERCRAIG Y. LEE AttorneysAttorneysDepartment of JusticeDepartment of JusticeAntitrust DivisionAntitrust DivisionSuite 3700Room 32241401 H Street, N.W.950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.Washington, D.C. Washington D.C. 20530(202) 514-2886____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...................1ARGUMENT......................................................3I.THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THEANTITRUST COUNT.........................................3A.The Charged Agreement Does Not Concern “The ForeignInland Segment” As Required For Immunity Under Section7(a)(4) of the Shipping Act.................................3B.Even if the Charged Agreement Concerned a Foreign InlandSegment, It is Not Immunized by Section 7(a)(4)..............13II.SECTION 7(A)(2) DOES NOT IMMUNIZE DEFENDANTS’AGREEMENT..............................................26III.SECTION 7(c)(1) DOES NOT RETROACTIVELY IMMUNIZEAGREEMENTS THAT WERE NEVER FILED WITH THEFMC OR EXEMPTED FROM FILING...........................33IV.THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO DISMISSCOUNT TWO...............................................34A.The Information Was Sufficient............................35B.Defendants Waived Their Right To Claim That The EvidenceWas Insufficient To Establish A Fraud Violation..............38C.The District Court Correctly Held That The Shipping ActDoes Not Provide Immunity For Fraud......................40V.THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY IMPOSED A FINE OF $4.6MILLION ON EACH DEFENDANT ON THE FRAUD COUNT......47
 
ii
A.Defendants Admitted That Their Conduct Caused a $2.3Million Loss...........................................47B.Defendants Have Not Shown That Their Fine Exceedsthe Statutory Maximum..................................49CONCLUSION...................................................51CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more