Herndon’s encounter with Richter by phone was described in an electronic communication written by D’Angelo, regarding his phone call with Herndon immediately following those events.
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
Some timing and related issues involving the phone calls on the morning of November 10, 1995, from a billing-account statement from Epstein, Zaideman & Esrig.
Some details of the conversations of November 10, 1995, between Herndon and D’Angelo; D’Angelo and Bassett; D’Angelo, Bassett, and Epstein; and D’Angelo, Bassett, Epstein, and Whitacre from an electronic communication written by D’Angelo on November 14.
Some details of Whitacre’s follow-up call on November 10, 1995, from a 302 from that date written by Bassett and D’Angelo for case file number 196D-CG-99593.
Some information about the history of the Monadnock Building from Adam Davidson, “Chicago Is a Showcase for Architectural Landmarks,” Chicago Tribune, June 21, 1999, Metromix section, p. 1.
Some details of Ferrari’s interview of December 6, 1995, from a 302 of that day written by D’Angelo and Bassett for case file number 196D-CG-99593.
Quotations from the December 12, 1995, letter from Spearing, Mackay, and Nixon to Bassett and D’Angelo come from the letter itself.
Quotations from the December 12, 1995, letter from Worthington to Spearing come from the letter itself.
The run-in between Patti McLaren and Andrew Levetown was described in some detail by Nancy Millman, “Private Investigators on Trail of Whistle-blower at ADM,’’ Chicago Tribune, February 4, 1996, Business section, p. 1; as well as by Henkoff, “Of Gumshoes, Gardeners and ADM,’’ Fortune magazine, March 4, 1996, p. 31. In both of those articles, the writers referred to allegations by McLaren that Levetown had indicated his firm might provide her with money for information about Whitacre. While such an offer is perfectly legal—and indeed, common among private detectives—Kroll Associates has vigorously disputed that it ever occurred. So, in the narrative, I have chosen to place the break immediately before the events in dispute. Whether it occurred, I believe, is of no consequence and does not affect the story. While these allegations are raised later by the Lamet Vov, they are not being described for their truth, but rather for the impact the charges had on Kroll’s efforts.
Quotes from Hoech’s letter to Yamamoto from the actual document.
The failure of the secretaries to bring up the Decatur Club allegations from their 302s taken during the ADM investigations.
Statements of the new witness, identified with the pseudonym of Joseph Graham, regarding possible frauds at ADM from a subsequent memo describing the information written by Herndon for Frances Hulin, dated January 30, 1996.
The “prostitute questions’’ from the actual document.
Details and quotes of the Lamet Vov letters from the following communications: July 18, 24, 30, and November 26, all in 1995. Also, from January 3, 1996.
Background of the term Lamed Vav Zaddikim from C. G. Montefiore and H. Lowe, A Rabbinic Anthology (Meridian Books, 1960), and Rabbi Stephen Pearce, “Kee Tissa: On imagining each person as the Messiah,” Torah Thoughts, March 8, 1996.
Some details of Williams & Connolly’s hunt for the Lamet Vov from a letter written by Jim Nixon to Bassett and D’Angelo on February 1, 1996.
Quotes of Daniel and Simon’s letter from the original document addressed to Mackay and Nixon, dated January 31, 1996.
Dain Bosworth research quote from Wittenburg’s original report.
Some details of Marty Allison’s interview from a 302 of February 13, 1996, written by Herndon.
Details of Lassar’s conversation with D’Angelo on February 14 from a memo of the discussion written by D’Angelo.
Some details of Kroll’s comparisons of the ADM case from John Grisham, The Firm, 1991.
Details of Goldberg’s conversation from Hoech from several sources. The first and most important is a tape recording of the discussion made by Hoech. Second is a 302 of Goldberg, written by Bassett, following a March 19, 1996, interview about the call. Details of Goldberg’s notes during the phone call come from the original document.
The pages about Dick Beattie that were sent around to ADM directors were from Sarah Bartlett, The Money Machine (Warner Books, 1991), pp. 287–300.
Quotes from the anonymous letter faxed to ADM are from the original document. Some other details of the event from a letter from Barry Simon of Williams & Connolly to Jim Nixon at the Justice Department, dated March 21, 1996, and from information contained on a Polaroid picture taken that day of the caller-ID box.
Some details of the efforts to confirm the abduction story from a memorandum written by Mike Bassett on March 27, 1996.
Some details of the Hoech interview from a 302 prepared by Bassett and D’Angelo.
Details of Killham’s recommendation for Shepard’s transfer to St. Thomas from the original draft.
Details of Whitacre’s interview with Steve Delaney of WAND from a videotape of the event.
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
Beat Schweizer’s call to the Justice Department, and the subsequent difficulties in arranging his interview, are described in an electronic communication to Bureau headquarters written on April 18, 1996, by Bassett, as well as an electronic communication from the same date relating to Bassett’s contact with Kurt Sieger.
Some details of Schweizer’s interview with the government from a 302 of May 13, 1996, written by Bassett and D’Angelo. Also, from an electronic communication to Bureau headquarters, written by D’Angelo on May 15.
The Justice Department confirmed that the Swiss prosecutors were sharing information with ADM attorneys. That is documented in an electronic communication, written by Bassett on May 20, 1996.
The reaction to the news of the Swiss leak is described in the electronic communications of May 15 and May 20.
A listing of the attendees to the 1996 Bilderberg conference was obtained by the author. Some details of the CIBC Center from a press release issued by the company on January 13, 1994.
Some details of the final interview with Shepard’s new witness from records of the polygraph.
The Biomar transaction involving the one-hundred-thousand-dollar Swiss check is described in several documents, including the depositions of Evelyn Ann Whitacre on March 23, 1998, and of Marion E. Whitacre on March 24, 1998, in the case of ADM v. Marion E. Whitacre, case number C-1-98-100, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, brought since Whitacre’s parents’ names appeared on checks written from their son’s foreign bank accounts. The case was later dropped. Additional information from the original documents, including the loan agreement and the Swiss check, as they correspond to the testimony of Mark Whitacre on October 24, 1997, in the bankruptcy case In re: Mark Edward Whitacre and Ginger Lynn Whitacre, case number 97-14541.
The court fight in Peoria is described in an electronic communication by D’Angelo, written on June 14, 1996.
Details of Rochelli’s grand jury appearance from a transcript of the proceedings, dated June 20, 1996. This also corresponds with Rochelli’s interview with the FBI, as documented in a 302 written by D’Angelo and Bassett, dated January 24, 1996.
Details of the Yamamoto documents from copies of the original records. Some details of Yamamoto’s interview from a 302 written by Herndon, dated June 30, 1996.
Some details of the August 12, 1996, interview with J. S. Kim from a 302 prepared by Herndon.
The discussions with Jim Epstein about possible charges were recorded in an electronic communication to Bureau headquarters, written by D’Angelo on August 16, 1996.
Some details of the government’s interview with Marty Allison from a 302 written by D’Angelo and Bassett, dated September 20, 1996.
The total amounts of the money stolen in 1991 that went to Nigeria from records prepared by the Chicago FBI for the fraud investigation.
Details of the lawsuit from the original complaint in ADM v. Mark E. Whitacre et al.<
br />
The hunt for and subsequent interview of David Page from a series of documents, including a 302 prepared by Special Agent James Halterman from the first interview conducted with Page; a 302 by Bassett from September 23, 1996, which described the hunt for Page; and the 302 of the final interview on November 25, 1996, prepared by D’Angelo and Grant.
CHAPTER NINETEEN
Some details of the final meeting of the ADM special committee from the official minutes.
Descriptions from the 1996 ADM shareholders meeting from my own personal observations.
The difficulties in treating Whitacre from progress notes written by Dr. Derek Miller, October 11–16, 1996.
Details and quotes from the letter terminating Epstein from the original document, dated November 3, 1996.
Kurth’s background and specialty from his entry in Martindale-Hubbell.
Quotes from the “Carpenter’s Union” letter from the original document. Other details from a November 8, 1996, letter by Aubrey Daniel, written to John C. Keeney, acting Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division.
The meeting between Whitacre, his lawyers, and Dr. Miller was documented in a progress note, dated December 19, 1996.
Some details of the Henkoff call and subsequent contacts were described in a detailed electronic communication, prepared by Shepard on January 9, 1997.
Quotes and details of the Fortune article from Henkoff, “Betrayal,’’ Fortune magazine, February 3, 1997, pp. 82–91.
I had certain advantages in recognizing the forgeries. Months earlier in 1996, at the time I was beginning to express doubts about some of Whitacre’s stories, an old press release issued by him reappeared at my office. It had what appeared to be a fax telltale at the top with my office fax number on it. David Hoech, the self-proclaimed Lamet Vov, told me that this document had been filed in court by ADM and was evidence that I had been sending information to the company. As a result, I was told, Whitacre was planning to sue the New York Times and me for millions of dollars. I did not know how to take this, since Whitacre himself was not saying any of this to me—and in fact, when asked, discounted it. On checking the court records, I found the same document filed as an exhibit, but it did not contain a telltale for my fax number.
The document that I had been sent was a forgery. The telltale was the number for the receiving fax machine at the Times, not the machine used to send documents. Moreover, phone bills showed that no call had ever been made from the number on the telltale. Finally, the telltale itself was printed in a font that is not used in any fax machine, although it is the default font for a popular word-processing program. From then on, I knew to study every record in this case for evidence of forgery.
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.
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.
Details of the New York Times article from “Archer Daniels Informer Admits Recent Deception,’’ New York Times, January 15, 1997, p. D1.
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.
Details of the dual appearances before the indictment review committee from an electronic communication prepared by D’Angelo on February 6, 1998.
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.
Some details of Whitacre’s final interview with the government from a 302 prepared by D’Angelo, dated February 6, 1998.
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.
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.
Details of the first Urbana hearings from personal observation and a transcript of the proceedings, dated February 26, 1997.
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
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.
Manning’s criticism was contained in a memorandum and order, filed in April 1998 in U.S. v. Michael D. Andreas et al.
Quotes from Herndon’s fax to Shepard from the document.
Some details of the verdict in the price-fixing case from a transcript of the proceedings, dated September 17, 1998.
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 whate
ver 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.
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.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
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.
Informant Page 74