JACKSON, Miss. (Legal Newsline) - It doesn’t look like private lawyers who scored a contract with former Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood will get the payday they were seeking when he hired them in October 2015.
On April 30, the state Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Mississippi’s lawsuit against the American subsidiaries of Japanese auto parts manufacturers that pled guilty to a price-fixing scheme involving automotive wire harness systems.
Hood hired Jackson lawyer Brent Hazzard to bring the case on a contingency fee that provided for several multimillion-dollar scenarios. Hazzard has long had an interest in who is in the AG’s Office:
-In 2007, he gave a modest $250 to Hood’s campaign but upped that to $5,000 in 2011;
-In 2015, he gave Hood $10,000 for what turned out to be his last run for AG;
-In 2019, he, like many other plaintiffs lawyers, threw his financial support behind Republican Lynn Fitch, giving her $10,000.
Hood was notorious for giving contracts to campaign contributors, and Hazzard was a favorite of Hood’s through the years, including in a case against Microsoft that ended with the state Supreme Court finding he was paid in an improper fashion.
In the wire harness case, he teamed with lawyers from Schwartz & Associates in Jackson; Boies Schiller in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; Provosty & Gankendorff in New Orleans; Simmons Hanly of Alton, Illinois; and Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C.
The Madison County Chancery Court dismissed their lawsuit in 2017 for failure state a claim, rejecting claims under consumer protection and antitrust laws.
Hood’s hired guns alleged nine subsidiaries had been part of an illegal cartel that fixed the prices of harness systems. The companies did not manufacture their parts in Mississippi, but the State alleged the products were sold to Nissan and Toyota, which have manufacturing plants there.
The State alleged its residents paid higher prices for their cars because the harness systems’ costs were inflated, drawing from the federal criminal prosecutions of parent companies that resulted in nine-figure penalties.
“Notably, the State did not even amend its complaint when given the opportunity to make any allegations of intrastate transactions,” Justice Jimmy Maxwell wrote. “Instead, the State chose to appeal.
“And on appeal, the State merely claims its broad assertion that the conspiracy existed in both interstate and intrastate commerce was sufficient… to give the defendants notice of the conduct that allegedly violated (the Mississippi Antitrust Act) and entitled the State to civil penalties on a per-violation basis.”
From Legal Newsline: Reach editor John O’Brien at john.obrien@therecordinc.com.