Skip to main content

Georgia Manufacturer of Food Service Equipment Hardware Pays $3.3 Million Fine for Role in Customer Allocation Conspiracy

WASHINGTON—A New York corporation, whose principal place of business is Newnan, Ga., was sentenced to pay a $3.3 million criminal fine for conspiring to allocate customers in the food service equipment hardware market, including walk-in refrigeration equipment, the Department of Justice announced today.

Kason Industries Inc., a food service equipment manufacturer, pleaded guilty on May 19, 2010, in U.S. District Court in Atlanta. Kason Industries and its former president, Peter A. Katz, were charged on May 6, 2010, with one count of participating in a conspiracy from December 2004 until at least December 2008, to allocate customers for food service equipment hardware sold in the United States and elsewhere. The department said that the purpose of the conspiracy was to reduce and eliminate competition in the sale of the food service equipment hardware manufactured or sold by Kason Industries, Katz and their co-conspirators. Katz, who also pleaded guilty, is scheduled to be sentenced on Jan. 5, 2011.

Food service equipment hardware includes fabricated parts, such as cafeteria hardware, equipment legs and casters, and fabrication supplies, and walk-in refrigeration components, such as metal racks, door hinges, handles, latches, closers and panel fasteners.

According to court documents, Katz and co-conspirators agreed during meetings and telephone and e-mail discussions to allocate customers of food service equipment hardware; not to compete for one another’s protected customers or to submit intentionally high prices or bids to certain customers; to exchange prices to customers so as not to undercut one another’s prices; and to sell food service equipment hardware at collusive and noncompetitive prices.

Today’s sentencing is the result of an ongoing federal antitrust investigation of customer allocation in the food service equipment hardware industry. The investigation is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s Atlanta Field Office and the FBI’s Atlanta Office.

Anyone with information concerning customer allocation or other anticompetitive conduct in the food service equipment hardware industry should contact the Antitrust Division’s Atlanta Field Office at 404-331-7100 or visit www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more