Informant (87 page)

Around the time of the publication of
The Informant
, David Hoech again relied on this forgery to begin falsely suggesting to reporters that I had been forwarding documents to Williams & Connolly. I decided to find out, once and for all, who had created the forgery. Subsequently, in a telephone conversation with Whitacre, I asked if he had, in fact, forged the document. Whitacre admitted doing so, although he said he could no longer explain his motivation. I would point out, however, that the fall of 1996 was when Whitacre’s psychological state was at its most confused.

Finally, I want to stress that in the course of this story, almost every reporter—including me—made mistakes. Mine came early in my coverage, in 1995, when I incorrectly reported that Whitacre had reached a plea agreement with the government. While at that point Whitacre had agreed to plead guilty and cooperate, the government had not accepted the offer. No one gave me bad information; rather, I had simply misunderstood, and, as a result, misrepresented the truthful details I had learned and confirmed. Of course, everyone involved in the case recognized my error, and so it had no impact on these events. I wrote a corrective article the next day. I bring this up to underscore, while the situation with the bogus documents worked out well for me, that did not unfailingly hold true.

532–33
The bogus Miller letter was dated November 14, 1995, but was obviously prepared sometime after that. The actual letter, from Miller to Whitacre, was dated December 16, 1996. The bogus letter from Whitacre to Epstein was dated July 17, 1995, but was also prepared sometime later. The Ameritech press release was dated November 20, 1995.

534
Details of the
New York Times
article from “Archer Daniels Informer Admits Recent Deception,’’
New York Times
, January 15, 1997, p. D1.

534
Details of Whitacre’s charges from the indictment filed in
U.S. v. Mark E. Whitacre
, case number 97-20001, filed in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of Illinois, Urbana division.

538
Details of the dual appearances before the indictment review committee from an electronic communication prepared by D’Angelo on February 6, 1998.

541–42
Details of Whitacre’s plea from the transcript of the proceedings dated Octo-ber 10, 1997. Quotes of statement handed out after the plea from the original document.

543–44
Some details of Whitacre’s final interview with the government from a 302 prepared by D’Angelo, dated February 6, 1998.

544–45
Details of the Whitacre affidavits from the original documents, both dated January 26, 1998. The cancellation of the stock certificate resulted in a number of disputes between Whitacre and Biomar, now known as BioSignia. A partnership, including Ginger and the children, sued BioSignia and the Campbells in May 2000, claiming that one million shares of the stock—which the suit contends had been paid to Whitacre in lieu of salary—had been improperly canceled by the company. In an earlier discussion of the dispute, J. William Koegel Jr. wrote a letter to Bill Walker dated October 28, 1999. In it, Mr. Koegel said that the company was surprised by Whitacre’s claim that he was owed stock, since the stock never vested. According to the letter, Whitacre testified that he had no claim to the stock during his bankruptcy proceedings, and indeed, no claim of ownership by either Mark or Ginger was made during the course of the bankruptcy. However, the new lawsuit claims that the partnership holds assets on behalf of the Whitacre children.

545–46
Details of Whitacre’s second apparent suicide attempt and the subsequent investigation from written reports on the incident from the Chapel Hill Police Department, listed under case number 9805666, dated February 26, 1998. The report also includes written statements by members of the Chapel Hill Fire Department.

546
Details of the first Urbana hearings from personal observation and a transcript of the proceedings, dated February 26, 1997.

546–49
Some details of the day of Whitacre’s sentencing in the fraud case from personal observation and a transcript of the proceedings, dated March 4, 1998.

EPILOGUE

551–53
Details from the day of opening arguments in the price-fixing case from personal observation and a transcript of the proceedings, dated July 15, 1998.

552
Manning’s criticism was contained in a memorandum and order, filed in April 1998 in
U.S. v. Michael D. Andreas et al.

555
Quotes from Herndon’s fax to Shepard from the document.

556–57
Some details of the verdict in the price-fixing case from a transcript of the proceedings, dated September 17, 1998.

558
As of this writing, Yamada of Ajinomoto remains under indictment, and American officials told me that the Japanese executive will be arrested if he attempts to come into the United States. No effort has been made to deport him from Japan—partly, I am told, out of concerns for international relations and also because of the difficulty in proving he had been adequately served notice of the case. Ajinomoto did plead guilty and paid a ten-million-dollar criminal fine. While only Mimoto pleaded guilty to the charges, Ikeda was granted immunity and testified about his participation in the criminal conspiracy during the trial of Mick Andreas, Terry Wilson, and Mark Whitacre.

Among the other participants, Kyowa Hakko also pleaded guilty and agreed to pay a ten-million-dollar criminal fine. Again, only one company executive—Masaru Yamamoto—pleaded guilty, paying a fifty-thousand-dollar fine. Sewon America Inc., a Paramus, New Jersey, subsidiary of Sewon in Korea, pleaded guilty and agreed to pay whatever fine was deemed appropriate by the court. J. S. Kim also admitted his guilt and was fined $75,000. No other Sewon executives were charged. Finally, Cheil Jedang pleaded guilty and agreed to pay a $1.25 million fine for its involvement in the conspiracy. None of its executives were charged.

The litigation between ADM and Mark Whitacre dragged on for years. The company eventually settled or dropped its complaints against everyone but Whitacre himself. That case resulted in a court order that Whitacre pay back $1.7 million in salary and benefits he received from ADM, because of what the court said was his failure to faithfully perform his corporate duties. ADM, in turn, was ordered to reinstate certain stock options that had been awarded to Whitacre. But in the end, the battle was mostly pointless: Whitacre was already on the hook to pay ADM $11 million, and the new judgment was uncollectable, Bill Walker, his lawyer, told reporters at the time.

The patent infringement suit between Ajinomoto and ADM also dragged on for some time. A trial was held in 1996, eventually resulting in a judgment on March 13, 1998. In that judgment, Judge Sue L. Robinson of the Federal District Court for the district of Delaware found that ADM had infringed on Ajinomoto’s valid patent for its threonine microbe. As a result, ADM was ordered to pay Ajinomoto a royalty rate of $1.23 for every kilogram of threonine sold since May 1993. The court also entered an injunction prohibiting ADM from continuing to infringe on the Ajinomoto patent.

559
The plans of the Campbells to donate their stock to charitable endeavors was described in an April 4, 2000, letter to their company’s shareholders and employees.

A
CKNOWLEDGMENTS

As always, there are many to thank.

At the
New York Times
, Chris Bockelmann and Brent Bowers offered generous amounts of their time reviewing the manuscript and sprinkled their magic throughout these pages. Their suggestions were invaluable. I am also indebted to my boss and friend, Glenn Kramon, who allowed me the freedom to follow my nose on this story and always backed me up. And I owe thanks to John Geddes, who first let me pick up the ADM story and stayed with me whenever the going got rough.

Others at the
Times
offered help at important junctures, including Diana Henriques, David Barboza, Mark Landler, Alison Leigh Cowan, Barnaby Feder, Gina Kolata, Laura Holson, and Adam Liptak. Donna Anderson helped dig up news articles, and Karen Cetinkaya provided photo research. Dylan McClain handled graphics.

I was unusually fortunate to work with three talented researchers—Michael Brick and Jamie Paton, both now reporters in the joint newsroom at the
New York Times
and TheStreet.com; and Geanne Rosenberg, now a contributing editor at the
National Law Journal
. Their skills never ceased to astonish me. Remember their names—they will each do big things in journalism.

My savior, as always, was Diane Obara, a hardworking assistant who was always ready to go the extra mile whenever the work piled up. Also helping out were Jacqueline Durham and Anna DiLegge.

I owe particular thanks to Alison Comas, a friend who agreed to read the manuscript in its roughest form to help me determine if I was on the right track. Julianna Patrick saved my life more times than I can count, coming by to help out whenever my schedule proved to be too much. Antonia New provided me with desperately needed suggestions at a critical juncture—and as a result, unknowingly had an effect on the events described in this book. And Jamie Moss of Newspros Strategic Communications once again proved her talent with an endless stream of brilliant suggestions.

I also want to thank Peter Comas, Alan Wachtel, Allan Naarden, Scott Burbine, Edward Beja, Kathy Paul, and Errington Thompson. The guys from Gravy—particularly John Fischer, Scott Friesen, Eric Lambert, Adam Payne, Colin Trevorrow, and Brian Ullman—were all amazingly patient with my frequent absences and never complained. Scott once again proved his diverse talents as he led me on an expedition of the Internet. And, for helping me as only a musical cybergenius can, special thanks go to Wes Carroll, the man of a thousand projects and the driving beat behind the House Jacks (
www.housejacks.com
), one of America’s most talented rock bands.

My agent, Freya Manston, was the first person to hear about the idea for this book and was always its biggest cheerleader. Without her support, this project would never have been completed.

I also want to thank everyone at Broadway Books, who provided an incredibly supportive and professional experience. In particular, I want to thank my editor, Suzanne Oaks, who once again guided me on my voyage into publishing. Suzanne was assisted by Claire Johnson, who was always ready to answer my endless questions with patience and a smile. Debbie Stier and Suzanne Herz were both a delight; as marketers, they are what authors’ dreams are made of. When the time came for the heavy lifting—that is, the copyediting of this book—Deirdre Hare put in an amazing performance, snapping the manuscript into shape in nothing flat. Supervising the entire production schedule and organization was Bette Alexander, who seemed able to accomplish any request within moments. Lauren Field spent endless hours conducting a legal review with me, making the book all the better with each suggestion. And those are just a few of the people at Broadway who made this experience so wonderful. I thank you all.

Above all, I want to thank my wonderful family. My wife, Theresa Eichenwald, was always there for me—to cheer me on, to get me through the tough days, to lessen the other loads. She was, again, my first reader, my best editor, and my best friend. But this time, she had three helpers: our sons, Adam, Ryan, and Sam. All of them displayed endless patience and support. In truth, this book could not have been written without my family and the contributions they made.

But now, it’s finished. So guys, I’m home.