Stolt-Nielsen: What Happened
Corporate Counsel, via law.com, has an excellent and lengthy article about the Stolt-Nielsen case.
The affair also offered one other result: a clear view into why the Justice Department lost a case of major importance. While the history of the case sounds complicated, the issue at the center of it all was quite simple. The Stolt case is a classic example of how two contracting parties can misunderstand each other. It all came down to one sticking point — the “stop date,” the point at which Stolt was supposed to have ceased its illegal conduct, in which it divided up lucrative shipping routes with two other companies. Was it March 1, 2002, as Justice contended, when the company first discovered the wrongdoing? Or was it months later, on Nov. 22, when Nannes first contacted the government to seek amnesty? Or was it Jan. 15, 2003, when both sides signed the amnesty agreement? Curiously, neither side included the stop date in the agreement.
My favorite quote, taken slightly out of context here:
Hammond declined to talk about the meeting except to say, yes, telling someone they are likely to be indicted can make one sound hostile.
There is also timeline and a short article about Stolt-Nielsen’s internal investigation.
RSS Feed
