
Former Bumble Bee Foods President and CEO Chris Lischewski formally appealed his conviction for leading a tuna price-fixing conspiracy in front of a three-judge panel on Wednesday, June 16.
Lischewski’s appeal is centered around an argument that District Court Judge Edward M. Chen, who oversaw the case, gave incorrect instructions to the jury. In Wednesday’s hearing, Lischewski’s lawyer, John D. Cline, called the jury instructions given by Chen erroneous and confusing, which could have made the difference in what he called a “very close case.”
“Against this backdrop, where so little stands between conviction and acquittal, it is extraordinarily important to instruct precisely and accurately on the agreement element, because that is all there is in this case,” Cline said. “It is particularly important in the context of this case, because this was a very close case, [but] you wouldn’t know it from the time the jury spent deliberating and I think that was due to the instructional error.”
Cline pointed to Chen’s instructions on the term “mutual understanding” and on the Per Se rule as being particularly damaging to Lischewski.
“One that troubles me the most is the mutual understanding instruction,” Cline said. “The only thing standing between Mr. Lischewski and prison was the agreement element, and yet when it came time to instruct on that element, the district judge … repeatedly instructed the jury that an agreement or mutual understanding would suffice. There’s a basic problem with that, which is this: Every agreement is a mutual understanding, but not every mutual understanding is an agreement, and in the context of this case, that difference is critical because there was, for example, evidence at trial that there was mutual understanding in the tuna industry that because fish costs were skyrocketing, prices had to go up. That is not the same as an agreement to fix prices.”
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Top Australian Law Firms Target ACCC Talent Ahead of Major Merger Reforms
May 11, 2025 by
CPI
What the Google Antitrust Trial Has Revealed So Far
May 11, 2025 by
CPI
Hamlin Remains Confident in 23XI, Front Row Antitrust Case Against NASCAR
May 11, 2025 by
CPI
Google Faces €2.97 Billion Lawsuit in Italy Over Alleged Market Abuse
May 11, 2025 by
CPI
UFC Finalizes $375 Million Settlement in Fighter Antitrust Case
May 11, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Mergers in Digital Markets
Apr 21, 2025 by
CPI
Catching a Killer? Six “Genetic Markers” to Assess Nascent Competitor Acquisitions
Apr 21, 2025 by
John Taladay & Christine Ryu-Naya
Digital Decoded: Is There More Scope for Digital Mergers In 2025?
Apr 21, 2025 by
Colin Raftery, Michele Davis, Sarah Jensen & Martin Dickson
AI In the Mix – An Ever-Evolving Approach to Jurisdiction Over Digital Mergers in Europe
Apr 21, 2025 by
Ingrid Vandenborre & Ketevan Zukakishvili
Antitrust Enforcement Errors Due to a Failure to Understand Organizational Capabilities and Dynamic Competition
Apr 21, 2025 by
Magdalena Kuyterink & David J. Teece