Dec. 30, 2013 7:56 p.m. ET
A feud between Apple Inc. AAPL -0.99% Apple Inc. U.S.: Nasdaq $554.52 -5.57 -0.99% Dec. 30, 2013 4:00 pm Volume (Delayed 15m) : 8.80M AFTER HOURS $553.10 -1.42 -0.26% Dec. 30, 2013 7:59 pm Volume (Delayed 15m): 257,942 P/E Ratio 13.89 Market Cap $503.93 Billion Dividend Yield 2.20% Rev. per Employee $2,127,850 12/30/13 Apple Feud Deepens With Court-... 12/30/13 What WSJ Canada Is Reading Mon... 12/29/13 Google, Apple Forge Auto Ties More quote details and news » and a lawyer appointed by a federal court judge to monitor the company's e-book pricing reform became even more acrimonious Monday.
Michael Bromwich, the lawyer picked as Apple's monitor, said in court documents filed Monday that Apple's characterization of his team's activities as a "roving investigation" in fact "bear no relation whatsoever to the activities we have attempted to conduct."
In an 11-page document accompanied by hundreds of pages of emails, Mr. Bromwich described repeated alleged efforts by Apple to block interviews between him and senior executives, as well as the company's failure to turn over relevant documents.
A lawyer for Apple declined to comment. A spokeswoman for Mr. Bromwich declined to comment.
Apple and Mr. Bromwich have been at loggerheads for months. In November, Apple said Mr. Bromwich, a partner at Goodwin Procter LLP and a former inspector general at the Justice Department, had stepped beyond the scope of his appointment by "operating in an unfettered and inappropriate manner" and was overcharging the company, citing a $138,432.40 for his first two weeks of work.
In December, Apple asked Manhattan U.S. District Judge Denise Cote to halt Mr. Bromwich's oversight of the company pending the company's appeal of Judge Cote's antitrust judgment against the company. Judge Cote ruled in July that Apple colluded with five major U.S. publishers to drive up the prices of e-books, a verdict Apple has said it planned to appeal.
The Justice Department, which reviewed Mr. Bromwich's proposal for the monitoring position, said in court papers filed in December that halting Mr. Bromwich's work would go against the "public's interested in preventing further antitrust violations by Apple."
On Monday, Mr. Bromwich said he routinely met with top management at the three organizations he previously monitored and had "never before had a request for a meeting or interview in a monitoring assignment rejected or even deferred."
"This is far less access than I have ever received during a comparable period of time in the three other monitorships I have conducted," Mr. Bromwich said.
According to the emails filed by Mr. Bromwich, his relationship with Apple was rocky from the start. After Mr. Bromwich sent Kyle Andeer, Apple's director of competition law, an email detailing his rates and the contours of his oversight, the wide gaps between the two party's expectations came into focus.
"Thanks very much for your response to my cover note and our draft letter," Mr. Bromwich wrote to Mr. Andeer on Oct. 26. "Unfortunately, I think you may have misconceived its purpose. It was not to begin a negotiation about fees, rates, and expenses, nor was it meant to provide you with an opportunity to provide us with guidelines…"
"I am disappointed by your position on rates and other fees," Mr. Andeer responded on Oct. 28. "They do not reflect market realities."
Write to Christopher M. Matthews at christopher.matthews@wsj.com
via apple - Google News http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNHCs7svoSFbkHKKkR4-rxmbCyUo3w&url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304361604579291042388608328.html
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment