Why did the Department of Justice originally terminate the Stolt-Nielsen amnesty agreement?
To answer your question, I have to begin with a bit of background. Our investigation was initiated when Stolt’s participation in international cartel activity was reported in the Wall Street Journal. The article disclosed that Stolt’s former general counsel was suing the company for constructive termination on the basis that he had discovered that high-level officials from Stolt were conspiring to fix prices with their competitors, that he tried to put an end to it, that the conspiracy nevertheless continued unabated, and that he had been forced to resign or risk being viewed as a co-conspirator. As disclosed during the Stolt litigation, when Stolt’s outside counsel rushed in after the article appeared, the division immediately raised the question as to whether the company had taken prompt and effective action to terminate its participation in the conspiracy after its discovery by the general counsel, as required under the division’s corporate leniency policy. Stolt’s attorneys informe
Related Questions
- When would my child go to the California Department of Corrections (CDC) instead of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice?
- Do Department of Justice (DOJ) Title VI implementing regulations prohibit both intentional discrimination and practices that have a discriminatory impact?
- Why did the Department of Justice originally terminate the Stolt-Nielsen amnesty agreement?
