Michael Bromwich, Apple Inc (NASDAQ:AAPL) antitrust monitor is set to continue with his court-ordered duties after the recent reports in the media touching on how Apple loses appeal to avoid ebook antitrust monitor.
Apple was initially found guilt for allegedly fixing the prices of ebooks. Apples request to stop the court order was halted by Judge Denise Cote, a US District Judge. The judge ruled that there was nothing improper concerning the declaration filed to keep Apple under watch. Therefore, the rule favors the continued monitoring of Apple.
Bromwich was appointed to oversee the compliance of the company with the terms regarding to price-fixing of electronic books in October. He was the former inspector general of the U.S Justice Department. The ruling by the judge explained on how the company broke the antitrust laws by playing a major role in the scheme.
While appealing on the antitrust judgment, Apple had the request that Bromwich be replaced. Apple claimed that Bromwich had inappropriately decided to interview Tim Cook, the CEO and Al Gore who is both a board member and the former vice president of the U.S. The company also claimed that the hourly rate payment of $1,100 paid to Bromwich was too much for them to manage. The judge however did not formally rule on the company’s move to disqualify Bromwich. She however promised to file a detailed report concerning the matter and granted Apple 48 hours to seek for an emergency appeal. Due to the appeal provision, the lawyers from the company promised to appear before the court to appeal on the final ruling.
Concerning the fee payable to Bromwich, the Judge referenced on one of the reports from the National Law Journal indicating a survey on data showing how most law firms paid hourly rates of about $1,000. In fact, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP the firm representing Apple in the court rule was on top of the list among the companies paying hourly rates of $1,800. As a result, there was no truth in the Apple injunction seeking to have a voice over the rate of payment.
Bromwich filing in court proved how Apple provided him with limited access to essential documents and personnel during his investigation. Bromwich’s report indicates how his efforts to interview some of the senior company leaders were unsuccessful. Some of the leaders claimed to be very busy with no time to schedule on the interviews.
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a lawyer representing Apple in the case argued how Bromwich was engaging in a roving and non-judicial investigation. Under the injunction, Apple is now barred from entering into any competitive contracts with all the ebook publishers. The judge also allowed the monitor to interview any of the personnel from the company. The monitor could also request any important documents they may want access to. Cote urged Apple to corporate with members from the monitor. She also encouraged them to handle their issues quickly either with the government or with him in the event that they occur in future. Tom Neumayr, Apple’s spokesman declined to comment on the ruling.
