Hitachi, Ltd. - Cooperation and Non-Prosecution Agreement

Similar documents
PLEA AGREEMENT RIGHTS OF DEFENDANT

Attorneys for the United States UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

PLEA AGREEMENT THOMAS QUINN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

2:13-cr GCS-PJK Doc # 9 Filed 11/05/13 Pg 1 of 19 Pg ID 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION.

2:16-cr GCS-APP Doc # 12 Filed 05/16/16 Pg 1 of 19 Pg ID 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF 11ICHIGAN SOUTHERN DMSION

Model Annotated Corporate Plea Agreement Last Updated 12/20/2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [XXXXXXX] DISTRICT OF [XXXXXXXXX] ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

PLEA AGREEMENT RIGHTS OF DEFENDANT

Nature of the Lawsuits

U. S. Department of Justice. Criminal Division. September 29, 2009

United States v. Telia Company AB Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Defendant Telia Company AB (the Company ), by its undersigned representatives,

Case 1:17-cr MHC Document 5 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 19

NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION AND SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING IN THE MATTER OF DRAM (DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY) CLASS ACTION LITIGATION

Case 3:11-cr DRD Document 22 Filed 03/15/11 Page 1 of 14

involved in the transaction, full restitution, a special

1. The defendant understands her rights as follows:

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOSHIBA ENTITIES AND THE STATE OF ILLINOIS REGARDING CRT ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Caddell Construction Co., Inc.

Case 2:12-cr AWA-TEM Document 51 Filed 05/09/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 147 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THI

case 3:04-cr AS document 162 filed 09/01/2005 page 1 of 6

FILED DEC Q--IL. DecemberJ, 2008

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. Alexandria Division PLEA AGREEMENT

Background. The Defendant. 1. From in or around 2007 through in or around January 2017,

Case 1:17-cr RC Document 3 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 10. United States v. Michael T. Flynn

GUILTY PLEA and PLEA AGREEMENT8Y:

United States v. Biocompatibles, Inc. Criminal Case No.

Case 1:09-mj JMF Document 3 Filed 01/12/2009 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PLEA AGREEMENT

Case 3:06-cr AWT Document 4 Filed 11/22/06 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. Alexandria Division PLEA AGREEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT

Case 2:10-md CJB-SS Document Filed 07/26/13 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULES 3:26 BAIL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PLEA AGREEMENT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY WASHINGTON, D.C ORDER RELATING TO GLS SOLUTIONS. INC.

WEB SERVICES-INTEROPERABILITY ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT

MARYLAND STATE TREASURER LOUIS L. GOLDSTEIN TREASURY BUILDING ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BUTTE DIVISION

: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, : : 01 Civ (BSJ) Plaintiff, : : : v. : PARTIAL FINAL : JUDGMENT AND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION PLEA AGREEMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

APPENDIX A RULES GOVERNING PRACTICE IN THE MUNICIPAL COURTS

U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund Application Form OMB No Expires 1/31/2017

Case 2:08-cr DDP Document 37 Filed 10/19/2009 Page 1 of 5. United States District Court Central District of California

ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL N V

United States Attorney District of Connecticut. February 20, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. Attorney, and the defendant, Kurt W. Donsbach, with the advice and

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PLEA AGREEMENT

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. This Settlement Agreement ( Agreement ) is entered into among the United

I am proud to share with you one of the great wins of anybody s legal career.

Case 3:10-cr FDW Document 3 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 7

Chicago False Claims Act

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. Judges PLEA AGREEMENT

FlLED RECEIVED. Case 2:09-cr ROS Document 152 Filed 11/08/10 Page 1 of 8 ~LODGED COPY NOV Ct.ERK US DISTRICT COURT DISTR CT OF A.

MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS ACT

Case 8:07-cr AG Document 141 Filed 01/11/11 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:2159. United States District Court Central District of California

Case 1:18-cr LM Document 2 Filed 07/23/18 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTWCT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PLEA AGREEMENT

Case 8:15-cr JLS Document 59 Filed 03/09/18 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:300 United States District Court Central District of California

8 IN RE: FRANCHISE NO POACHING NO. 9 PROVISIONS BURGER KING CORPORATION 10 ASSURANCE OF DISCONTINUANCE 11 I. PARTIES

WASHINGTON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Downsville Pike, Hagerstown, Maryland 21740

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY WASHINGTON, D.C ORDER RELATING TO GREGORIO L. SALAZAR

CHAPTER 119 WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

Ronald Reagan Federnl Bwlding Suite Walnut Street P. 0. Box Hal'nsbw-g; PA (717) FAX (717)

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND COVENANT NOT TO SUE

Case 2:09-cr R Document 25 Filed 12/10/2009 Page 1 of 24

NOBLE ENERGY, INC. Pursuant to the Offer to Purchase dated August 8, 2017

THE FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT 31 U.S.C

DIVESTITURE AGREEMENT

Section 1: Statement of Purpose Section 2: Voluntary Discovery Section 3: Discovery by Order of the Court... 2

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cr WHA Document40 Filed08/08/11 Page1 of 10

ATTACHMENT A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (applicable if an MBE goal is set)

(4) Filing Fee: Payment of a $ 5.00 filing is required at the time of filing.

5 CRWIINAL NO. H

You Could Get Money From $44.95 Million in Settlements A Federal Court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of New Jersey

NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY SETTLEMENT TRUST

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PLEA AGREEMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION

STATE OF MARYLAND * IN THE * CIRCUIT COURT vs. * FOR * * CASE NO.

THE TAIPEI ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

Case 8:16-cr JLS Document 59 Filed 05/04/18 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:269 United States District Court Central District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

VOTING AGREEMENT RECITALS

COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

FINAL JUDGMENT OF INJUNCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST STALKING (AFTER NOTICE)

Rhode Island False Claims Act

Case 8:07-cr CJC Document 50 Filed 12/18/12 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:213. United States District Court Central District of California

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL GLOBAL BANK CORPORATION. Global Bondholder Services Corporation

Case 1:05-cr RBW Document 260 Filed 01/30/2007 Page 1 of 7 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FLORIDA STATUTES ANNOTATED TITLE 46. CRIMES CHAPTER 775. DEFINITIONS; GENERAL PENALTIES; REGISTRATION OF CRIMINALS (2010)

This Act may be cited as the Mutual Assistance in Criminal and Related Matters Act 2003.

District of Columbia False Claims Act

(Official Translation)

SOUTHERN GLAZER S WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC. EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION POLICY

Case &:11 cr JMM Document 257 Filed 09/17/12 Page 1 of 12. INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT FILED s EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PLEA AGREEMENT

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

Transcription:

San Francisco Office 450 Golden Gate Avenue Telephone (415) 436-6660 Box 36046 Telecopier (415) 436-6687 San Francisco, California 94102 January 20, 2006 Carl W. Schwarz, Esq. McDermott Will & Emery LLP 600 13 th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Re: Hitachi, Ltd. - Cooperation and Non-Prosecution Agreement Dear Mr. Schwarz: This letter sets forth the terms and conditions of an agreement between the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice ( Antitrust Division ) and Hitachi, Ltd. ( Hitachi ) concerning (i) Hitachi s cooperation with the Antitrust Division s criminal investigation of antitrust and related offenses in the DRAM industry in the United States and elsewhere and (ii) the Antitrust Division s non-prosecution commitments. For purposes of this Cooperation and Non-Prosecution Agreement, DRAM means dynamic random access memory semiconductor devices and modules, including synchronous DRAM, double data rate (DDR), and Rambus (RDRAM). 1. Hitachi agrees that it will cooperate fully and truthfully with the Antitrust Division in: (i) the current federal investigation of violations of federal antitrust and related criminal laws involving the manufacture or sale of DRAM in the United States; and (ii) litigation or other proceedings arising or resulting from any such investigation to which the United States is a party (collectively, (i)-(ii), Federal Proceeding ). The ongoing, full, and truthful cooperation of Hitachi shall include, but not be limited to: (a) at the request of the Antitrust Division, providing a full exposition of all facts known to Hitachi as a result of its internal investigation relating to any possible violation of federal antitrust and related criminal laws involving the manufacture or sale of DRAM in or for the United States; (b) producing to the Antitrust Division all non-privileged documents, information, and other materials (with translations in English), wherever located, in the possession, custody, or control of Hitachi, requested by the Antitrust Division in connection with any Federal Proceeding; (c) using its best efforts to secure the ongoing, full, and truthful cooperation, as defined in Paragraphs 2 and 3 below, of Hitachi s subsidiaries (companies in which Hitachi has a

direct or indirect ownership interest of greater than 50% and which were engaged in the manufacture or sale of DRAM in the United States) and the current and former directors, officers, and employees of Hitachi and its subsidiaries as may be requested by the Antitrust Division but excluding Choei Matsushima, Osamu Fujiwara, Akihiko Furusawa, Hiroshi Higuchi, and Dimitrios James ( Jim ) Sogas including making these persons available in the United States at mutually agreed-upon locations, not at the expense of the Antitrust Division, for interview and the provision of testimony in grand jury, trial, and other judicial proceedings in connection with any Federal Proceeding. 2. The ongoing, full, and truthful cooperation of each subsidiary described in Paragraph 1(c) above will be subject to the procedures and protections of this agreement, and shall include, but not be limited to producing to the Antitrust Division all non-privileged documents, information, and other materials (with translations in English), wherever located, in the possession, custody, or control of such subsidiary, requested by the Antitrust Division in connection with any Federal Proceeding. 3. The ongoing, full, and truthful cooperation of each person described in Paragraph 1(c) above will be subject to the procedures and protections of this agreement and shall include, but not be limited to: (a) producing in the United States and at mutually agreed-upon locations all nonprivileged documents (with translations into English), including claimed personal documents and other materials, wherever located, requested by attorneys and agents of the Antitrust Division in connection with any Federal Proceeding; (b) making himself or herself available for interview in the United States at mutually agreed-upon locations, not at the expense of the United States, upon the request of attorneys and agents of the Antitrust Division in connection with any Federal Proceeding; (c) responding fully and truthfully to all inquiries of the Antitrust Division in connection with any Federal Proceeding, without falsely implicating any person or intentionally withholding any information, subject to the penalties of making false statements (18 U.S.C. 1001) and obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. 1503); (d) otherwise voluntarily providing the Antitrust Division with any non-privileged material or information not requested in (a)-(c) of this Paragraph that he or she may have that is related to any Federal Proceeding; and (e) when called upon to do so by the Antitrust Division in connection with any Federal Proceeding, testifying in grand jury, trial, and other judicial proceedings in the United States fully, truthfully, and under oath, subject to the penalties of perjury (18 U.S.C. 1623), contempt (18 U.S.C. 401-402), and obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. 1503). 4. Subject to Hitachi s satisfaction of the cooperation requirements of Paragraph 1 above, the Antitrust Division agrees that it will not bring criminal charges against Hitachi for any act or offense committed before the date of this agreement that was undertaken in furtherance of an 2

antitrust conspiracy involving the manufacture or sale of DRAM in the United States and elsewhere or undertaken in connection with any investigation of such conspiracy ( Relevant Offense ). The non-prosecution terms of this Paragraph do not apply to civil matters of any kind, to any violation of the federal tax or securities laws, or to any crime of violence. 5. Subject to Hitachi s satisfaction of the cooperation requirements of Paragraph 1 above, the Antitrust Division also agrees to the following: (a) subject to the exceptions noted in Paragraph 5(c), the Antitrust Division will not bring criminal charges against any subsidiary or any current or former director, officer, or employee of Hitachi or its subsidiaries for any Relevant Offense committed before the date of this agreement and while that person was acting as a director, officer, or employee of Hitachi or a subsidiary. The protections granted by this Paragraph shall not apply to Choei Matsushima, Osamu Fujiwara, Akihiko Furusawa, Hiroshi Higuchi, and Dimitrios James ( Jim ) Sogas; (b) should the Antitrust Division determine that any current or former director, officer, or employee of Hitachi or its subsidiaries (except Choei Matsushima, Osamu Fujiwara, Akihiko Furusawa, Hiroshi Higuchi, and Dimitrios James ( Jim ) Sogas) may have information relevant to any Federal Proceeding, the Antitrust Division may request that person s cooperation under the terms of this agreement by written request delivered to counsel for the individual (with a copy to the undersigned counsel for Hitachi) or, if the individual is not known to the Antitrust Division to be represented, to the undersigned counsel for Hitachi; (c) if any person requested to provide cooperation under Paragraph 5(b) fails to comply with his or her obligations under Paragraph 3, then the terms of this agreement as they pertain to that person, and the agreement not to prosecute that person granted in this agreement, shall be rendered void, and any leniency, immunity, or non-prosecution granted to such a person under the agreement may be revoked by the Antitrust Division; (d) should any leniency, immunity, or non-prosecution granted be revoked, the Antitrust Division may thereafter prosecute such person criminally, and the agreement in 5(e) not to use that information or any information directly or indirectly derived from it against that person in a criminal case shall be rendered void, and any statements or other information provided by such person to the Antitrust Division under this agreement may be used against him or her in such prosecution; (e) except as provided in Paragraph 5(c), information provided by a person described in Paragraph 5(b) to the Antitrust Division under the terms of this agreement pertaining to any Relevant Offense, or any information directly or indirectly derived from that information, may not be used against that person in a criminal case, except in a prosecution for perjury (18 U.S.C. 1621), making a false statement or declaration (18 U.S.C. 1001, 1623), or obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. 1503); and (f) the non-prosecution terms of this Paragraph do not apply to civil matters of any kind, to any violation of the federal tax or securities laws, or to any crime of violence. 3

6. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the obligations of Hitachi described in Paragraph 1 above and the obligations of each person or subsidiary described in Paragraph 1(c) above under this agreement shall relate solely to events occurring prior to the effective date of this Agreement. 7. The Antitrust Division agrees that when any person travels to the United States for interviews, grand jury appearances, or court appearances pursuant to this agreement, or for meetings with counsel in preparation therefor, the Antitrust Division will take no action, based upon any Relevant Offense, to subject such person to arrest, detention, or service of process, or to prevent such person from entering or departing the United States. This Paragraph does not apply to an individual s commission of perjury (18 U.S.C. 1621), making a false statement (18 U.S.C. 1001, 1623), obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. 1503), or contempt (18 U.S.C. 401-402) in connection with any testimony or information provided or requested in any Federal Proceeding. 8. The commitments in Paragraphs 4 and 5(a) of this agreement bind only the Antitrust Division, although, upon the request of Hitachi, the Antitrust Division will bring this agreement to the attention of other prosecuting offices or administrative agencies. 9. Should the Antitrust Division determine in good faith that Hitachi has failed to provide full and truthful cooperation, as described in Paragraph 1 of this agreement, or has otherwise violated any provision of this agreement, the Antitrust Division will notify counsel for Hitachi in writing by personal or overnight delivery or facsimile transmission and may also notify counsel by telephone of its intention to void any of its obligations under this agreement (except its obligations under this Paragraph), and Hitachi shall be subject to prosecution for any federal crime of which the Antitrust Division has knowledge, including, but not limited to, the substantive offenses relating to the investigation resulting in this agreement. Hitachi may seek Court review of any determination made by the Antitrust Division under this Paragraph to void any of its obligations under this agreement. Hitachi agrees that, in the event that the Antitrust Division is released from its obligations under this agreement and brings criminal charges against Hitachi for any offense referred to in Paragraph 4 of this agreement, the statute of limitations period for such offense will be tolled for the period between the date of the signing of this agreement and six (6) months after the date the Antitrust Division gave notice of its intent to void its obligations under this agreement. Hitachi understands and agrees that in any further prosecution of it resulting from the release of the Antitrust Division from its obligations under this agreement because of Hitachi s violation of this agreement, any documents, statements, information, testimony, or evidence provided by it or its current directors, officers, or employees of it, to attorneys or agents of the United States, federal grand juries, or courts, and any leads derived therefrom, may be used against it in any such further prosecution. In addition, Hitachi unconditionally waives its right to challenge the use of such evidence in any such further prosecution, notwithstanding the protections of Fed. R. Evid. 410. 10. The terms of this agreement are contingent on the Court s acceptance of the Antitrust Division s Plea Agreement with Elpida Memory, Inc. ( Elpida ) and the Court s sentencing of Elpida to the recommended sentence in the Plea Agreement. Hitachi, as well as NEC 4

Corporation, was a corporate founder of Elpida. 11. This agreement, upon its mutual execution, constitutes the entire agreement between the Antitrust Division and Hitachi, and supersedes all prior understandings, if any, whether oral or written, relating to the subject matter of this agreement. The signatories below acknowledge the acceptance of the foregoing terms and conditions. Sincerely yours, /s/ Niall Lynch Assistant Chief San Francisco Field Office /s/ January 27, 2006 Hitachi, Ltd. Date /s/ January 27, 2006 Carl W. Schwarz Date Attorney for Hitachi, Ltd. 5