By: Editorial Staff, Date: May 23rd, 2022
In the world of federal trials, especially where the Department of Justice is involved, going to trial is high risk. The DOJ generally touts a 97% win rate, mainly because, with the stakes so high in such cases, the high majority of defendants plea bargain and settle. However, every once in a while, a case comes along where the feds don’t have the stronger case, and the defendant wins. That just happened in the case of the dialysis giant DaVita and its former CEO, Kent Thiry.
The case allegations charged Thiry and his company, DaVita, with conspiracy, specifically to not poach or hire key employees from competing employers. It’s a hefty charge and had the guilty verdict pushed through, DaVita could face a $100 million maximum penalty for each of the three counts, while Thiry could suffer from a $1 million fine per count and 10 years imprisonment.
However, after only two days of review and consideration, the jury came back and flat out rejected the federal prosecutor’s case. This was a landmark decision because the DaVita case was spearheading an effort by the DOJ to criminalize employee poaching using the Sherman Antitrust Act, typically a law reserved for going after potential or existing monopolies and cartels for being anti-competitive.
Given that the DaVita case is essentially a huge blow to the DOJ’s antitrust enforcement, there will likely be a serious reconsideration of the legal strategy on the federal side. If nothing else, DOJ’s antitrust division will likely be taking a long, hard look at their pending caseload to decide what to do next. And for those with pending similar indictments or investigations, the DaVita verdict is a huge positive. More than likely, the pressure will be on for the DOJ to settle those cases for far fewer results than convictions, especially given how the trial path is extremely untenable for the courts.
Upcoming Webcasts
Insurance Bad Faith Litigation: Novel Issues and New Case Law
Delve into the intricate world of Insurance Bad Faith Litigation, a pivotal aspect of insurance law that addresses the conduct of insurers towards policyholders. Understanding the complexities, strategic considerations, and recent legal developments in bad faith litigation is crucial for legal professionals and industry stakeholders. This webinar provides a comprehensive analysis of insurance bad faith claims, equipping participants with the insights and strategies necessary to navigate these challenging cases effectively. Join us for this enlightening session, where our panel of experts will dissect the nuances of Insurance Bad Faith Litigation. They will cover the essential components, discuss key strategies, examine recent case law, and explore the broader implications for policyholders, insurers, and legal practitioners.