Former US Attorney questioned at House hearing about monitors in DOJ agreements

While some applauded his achievements, others raised concerns about the monitors.

During an often-heated inquiry by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, New Jersey’s former United States Attorney, Christopher J. Christie, recently defended his choice of monitors for five orthopedic device manufacturing companies that were involved in deferred and non-prosecution agreements with the Department of Justice.

At the hearing on accountability, transparency and uniformity in corporate deferred and non-prosecution agreements, Democrats questioned the appropriateness of Christie’s decision to give lucrative monitoring contracts to those with whom he allegedly has ties — most notably, Christie’s former boss and Attorney General John Ashcroft, whose firm is estimated to have received up to $52 million in fees for monitoring Zimmer.

However, Republican members of the committee applauded Christie’s work which they say helped preserve jobs, save an industry and restore nearly a half-billion dollars to the public. They also cited the press and state Democrats for stirring up controversy during Christie’s bid to run for governor of New Jersey.

Compatible parties

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) argued that Zimmer, Smith & Nephew, DePuy, Stryker and Biomet agreed to the monitors recommended by Christie for fear of prosecution.

“The bottom line is you made them an offer they could not refuse,” Cohen said.

Christie countered that the monitors were accepted because his former staff ensured that the parties were compatible.

“These folks came back and were not under duress,” Christie said. “They came back and said that they appreciated the monitors that were selected and they accepted the monitors that were selected. I do not appreciate the implication that you make in the question.”

Christie also noted that Zimmer, a company located in Indiana, requested a monitor with “Midwestern sensibilities” and responded that they “got the best monitor” in Ashcroft after reviewing him as a candidate.

Cohen also cited e-mail sent to Christie from Zimmer’s council objecting to monitoring fees proposed by Ashcroft’s firm.

“I was not the least bit shocked, sir, to receive e-mail from high priced lawyers arguing over fees,” Christie said.

In addition, Cohen claimed that Christie failed to intervene in fee negotiations when the groups reached an impasse. Christie said that he asked the groups to resolve their differences without assistance and said that he would intervene if necessary. Soon thereafter, the groups came to an agreement, he said.

Unknown fees

Rep. William Delahunt (D-Mass.) stressed the importance of appearances regarding conflict of interest.

“The reality is $52 million is a lot of money,” he said. “Fifty-two million dollars to the former attorney general who you worked for. [The] public is going to say $52 million for what — one single case? I am not suggesting that you did anything improper, but appearances are important.” He said that such questions would not arise if the court appointed monitors.

Christie said that an estimate given for the fee was between $20 million and $50 million, and that independent lawyers contacted by the press said that Ashcroft’s fee structure was not unreasonable for the task.

“I do not know what those exact fees turned out to be because those were between Zimmer and the Ashcroft group,” he said.

Selection

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) asked Christie about his selection process and if the monitors had contributed to his gubernatorial campaign.

“What process did you have to invite people who you did not know to apply for these monitoring jobs or were these lucrative contracts limited to people that you and your staff had a relationship with?” he asked.

Christie said that the contracts were limited to qualified candidates and that only former federal justice, Herbert Stern, who is not involved in these agreements, has contributed to the campaign. He also responded that there was no a perception of quid pro quo when he recommended David Kelly, a former prosecutor who previously declined to seek charges against Christie’s brother, as a monitor.

“Five jets on a runway”

During the hearing, Christie highlighted the accomplishments and difficulties of coordinating agreements with the five companies.

“It literally was akin to trying to land five jets on the same runway at the same time without them crashing,” he said. “The reform that they achieved, in my view, was extraordinary.” At the end of the first year of the agreement, he noted that payments to surgeon consultants by these companies dropped by $150 million and there were more than 1,000 fewer consultants for these groups.

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) said that Christie deserves a medal for his achievements and noted that critics and partisans overlooked the fact that the companies — not Christie — were subject to an agreement.

“They overlooked that the companies, and not Mr. Christie and the taxpayers, had hired General Ashcroft and the other monitors and negotiated and paid all fees and costs for the monitors. [They] overlooked that Ashcroft was immensely qualified for the job of serving as a monitor for Zimmer.”

Christie left the hearing before the end of questioning saying that he had previously notified the court that he had to attend pressing business in New Jersey.

Calls to Christie’s office were not returned.

For more information:

• www.house.gov