In a stunning surprise to most, coated-paper maker Stora Enso North America Corp. has been acquitted of price-fixing in a federal jury trial in Connecticut. The company had been indicted by DOJ in December 2006 on charges of conspiring with competitors to fix coated magazine paper prices during 2002-03.

Stora’s North American division is a subsidiary of the Finnish paper, packaging and forest products manufacturer Stora Enso Oyj.

To many, the decision by Stora Enso to fight the charges in court was a curious one for three reasons:

(1) the company’s alleged collusion partner, competitor UPM-Kymmene Corp. (also of Finland) had already taken advantage of a corporate leniency agreement and received amnesty through “tattling” on Stora Enso. This create a negative perception of assumptive guilt which would have to be overcome;

(2) Juries are generally more sympathetic to people, not corporations;

(3) DOJ’s Antitrust Division has a criminal prosecution winning record better than the 1927 Yankees (with 454 wins and 11 losses over the past 10 years).

Thank you to www.overlawyered.com for that last statistic. The website boasts an interesting analysis of this case called Fighting Collusion Through Collusion.

Commentary: A tip of the hat to David Rosenbloom, the national head of McDermott Will & Emery’s white-collar practice, who let his client take its chances in court (and successfully defended them), as that was an incredibly gutsy move.