Hynix price fixing plea memo

Joint Sentencing Memorandum By The United States And Hynix Semiconductor Inc.; and Request For Expedited Sentencing.

Snips . . .

For purposes of the Plea Agreement, “DRAM” means dynamic random access memory semiconductor devices and modules, including synchronous dynamic random access memory (“SDRAM”) and double data rate dynamic random access memory (“DDR”) semiconductor devices and modules, but not Rambus dynamic random access memory (“RDRAM”) semiconductor devices and modules. (p.2, l.23)

The United States contends that had this case gone to trial, the United States would have presented evidence to that the gain derived from or the loss resulting from the charged offense is sufficient to justify a fine of $185 million . . . (p.3, l.13)

The parties agree that the recommended fine is appropriate . . .due to the inability of the Defendant to make restitution to victims and to pay a fine greater than that recommended without substantially jeopardizing its continued viability, even with the use of a reasonable installment schedule. (p.3, l.18)

The United States will not seek restitution in this case in light of the many civil class action cases filed against Hynix . . . which each potentially provide for a recovery of a multiple of actual damages. (p.3, l. 26)

The United States agrees that it will note bring further criminal charges against Hynix and its officers and its directors, and employees, (except for the five Hynix individuals specifically excluded from the Plea Agreement) for their participation in the conspiracy. (p.4, l.4)

Because of factors unique to Hynix, this volume of commerce calculation excludes commerce during the 14-month period October 2000 through November 2001. (p. 6, l.4)

Donkey Notes:
1) Specifically excludes RDRAM.
2) Nathanael M. Cousins remains on the case.

Hat tip to FinzToRite for the link.