us department of justice antitrust case brief - 02170-224255

8/14/2019 US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 02170-224255

1/9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU RTNORTH ERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DNISIO N

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERICA 1) Criminal No.:

v. )) Violation : 18 U.S.C. 371 .

TODD M . MAR.KEY, 1Defendant. ) JUDGE O'MALLEY--:-

INFORMATION

M A G . I r l n ~ ~~ H A ~ ~ &The United States of Am erica, acting through its attorneys, charges:CONSPIRACY

(18 U.S.C.4

371)

1. Todd M . Mark ey is hereby made a defendant on the charge stated below.

I. DEFENDANTAN D CO-CONSPIRATORS

At all times material to this Info rmation:

2. Defendant Markey was chief operating officer of a company in the business of

manufacturing and selling slats for window blinds. Slats are the louvers of window blinds that

can be adjusted to let in more or less light. The Defendant's employer sold slats to fabricators

and others. A fab ricator mak es slats into complete window blind units.

3. Co-con spirator Mario Cadorette was presiden t of the com pany Defendant was

employed by, and th e Defend ant reported to him.

4 . Various indiv iduals and companies, not m ade defendan ts in this Information,

participated as co-conspirators in the offense charged in th is Information and performed acts and

made statemen ts in furtherance of it.

5 . Whenever in this Information reference is m ade to any act, deed, or transaction of


2/9

any corporation, the allegation means that the corporation engaged in the act, deed, or transaction

by or through its officers, directors, agents, employees, or other representatives while they were

actively engaged in the management, direction, control, or transaction of its business or affairs.

II. THE CONSPIRACY AND ITS OBJECTS

6 . From April 2002 to on or about July 9,2002, the exact dates being unknown to

the United States, in the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Ohio and elsewhere, the

Defendant did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with others to commit the

following offense against the United States, namely, having knowingly devised and intending to

devise a scheme and artifice to defraud as to a material matter, and for obtaining money and

property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises,

and for the purpose of executing the scheme and artifice to defraud, transmitted and caused to be

transmitted writings, signals, and sounds, by means of wire communication in interstate and

foreign commerce, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.

III. MANNER AND MEANS OF THE CONSPIRACY

7 . It was a part of the conspiracy that the Defendant and co-conspirators would and

did knowingly devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud slats customers of

money and the right to free and open competition in the pricing of slats by secretly fixing at

noncompetitive and collusive levels the prices charged for slats (hereinafter "price-fixing

scheme").

8. It was further a part of the conspiracy that the Defendant and co-conspirators

would and did participate in an international telephone conference call during which there was

discussion of the need to increase prices for slats and the need to obtain the agreement of the slats


3/9

man ufacturers that were their com petitors to raise their prices.

9. It was further a part of the conspiracy that the Defendant and co-con spirators

would and did m ake and ag ree on assignmen ts to contact specific comp etitors.

10 . It was further a part o f the conspiracy that the Defendant and co-conspirators

would and did cause th e placing of, and wo uld and did participate in, interstate telephone calls

with com petitors to con vince them to tak e part in the price-fixing scheme.

IV . OVERT ACTS

11. In furtherance of the co nspiracy and to effectuate the illegal objects thereof, the

Defendant and co-conspirators com mitted the following overt acts, among others, in the Northern

District of Ohio and elsewhere.

a. During an international conference call on or about April 22- 25,2002,

the Defendant and co-conspirators agreed on a price-fixing schem e whereby they would secretly

convince com petitors to increase slats prices by eight percent.

b. During that conference call, with co-conspirator Mario Cado rette taking

the lead, the Defendant and co-conspirators agreed to contact their competitors to convince them

to take part in the price-fixing sch eme.

c. During that conference call, co-conspirator Mario Cadorette gave

assignm ents to contact specific competitors, which were agreed upon by the Defendant and

co-conspirators.

d. Beginning shortly after that conference call, the D efendant and

co-conspirators made a series of contacts with their com petitors, including interstate telephone

calls, to co nvince them to take part in the price-fixing scheme.


4/9

V. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. The conspiracy charged in his Information was carried out, in part,

within the Northern District of Ohio within the five years preceding the filing of this Information,

excluding the period during which the statute of limitations has been suspended pursuant to the

two attached agreements with the Defendant, each titled "Agreement Between The United States

of America md Todd M. Markey Regarding Statute of Limitations" (Attachments 1 and 2). In

furtherance. of the conspiracy, interstate calls were made between a location in Houston, Texas

anda location witbin this district within the five years preceding the filing of the Information,

excluding the period during which the statute of limitations has been suspended pursuamt to the

attached agreements with the Defendant.


5/9

All in violation of Title 18, United S tates Code, Section 371.

DATED: 7

Assistant Attorney General Chief, Cleveland Office

I.-

SCOTT D. HAMM ONDDeputy Assistant Attorney G eneral

MARC SIEGELDirector of Crimin al Enforcem entAntitrust D ivisionU.S. Department of Justice

Northern District of Ohio

DONALD M. LYON /(19207-WA)

Attorneys, Antitrust D ivisionU.S. Department of JusticeCarl B. Stokes U.S. Courthouse801 W. Superior Ave., 1 4 '~loorCleveland, OH 441 13-1857

Tel: (216) 687-8446Fax: (216) 687-843 2E-mail: william.oberdick@usdoi aov


6/9

03/02:07 ION 15:33 FAX 218 928 1007 ROT.


7/9

1 . 1 4 t ' U i * ' I J t Yl.l.13 IS: 4 21 0 H Y b i u i ) :0 2 i Z t I / c ! U U f l i 4 ? t h X 2 1bb.5 1 6 4 2 5 KU'l 'Al UK

. C1&> (.:I) LYA. L S U U J A N l i ' f i J > ! L L t V c U &

DATED:t

.-- BY:

f o d

Caunrd for Todd bI. E S Q . ~ I ; I ~ ~ ~ X ~

Attorneys, Antitnut DivleicrfiU.S. DepJJlmtnt af usticeCarl B. tokes U.S Cotd,~House801 W Superjor Ate , , idch l w rClevelanc, Ohio 4-4113-1857Telep'n~n~: 2 16) 687-8446

Fsx: (216'1 687-8423E-mail: ~It im.oberd: icb@usd~j,gov


8/9

05, 0/07 ' M U 14:23 F A X 21 6 0 2 8 l O U 7 ROTATORI. G&S CO LPA M 0028 5 / 8 9 / 2 0 0 7 08: 3 7134571288 HOME FASHION TECH

o$;(iDf1X7 1)0:24 F.U 2 1 6 a 2 9 JUU7 PAGE 825S;G:!t00? IC:05 F L X 2 1 ~ 6 B 7 9 4 2 B D?. *9?7;3


9/9

U S l U / U I 1 t l U 1 4 : Z - J F A A Z l b UZ6 l U U 1 K U I A I U K I . be21 LU LYA05/09/2087 $8: 43 7134571208

1 ) s . oart)7 Wm 0Q:ZJ k-42 Z i a u i b L v u r~ ~ 5 r ' Q l i 2 4 b ? 5 C B F A X 21868f8423 GUST CL&VE OH

Arrctmeys. Antimet DividaaU.Si btq&msdt ufJuslicec d . Smkes U-3. Caun H D Y ~ ~

\ 001 W, S~g!$ar A*&, 1 ~ f u a rClFCeliuii, C3E.o 44113-1357

I L. slcw;ER, T * I ~ M o : zrQ 68738m

CI=WCX WTar3d

kL BSQ&l8~k@yFWL! 2161

8744253ELr4ail: ariUirundab&3ck-.

I

us department of justice antitrust case brief - 02170-224255

Documents