rtioning customers among the companies and restraining com- petition. In January 2003, Pickering's successor, appellee Richard Wingfield, provided Nannes with four such lists, which confirmed that Stott-Nielsen had in- deed engaged in illegal anticompetitive be- havior. Nannes promptly turned these

criminal liability. On November 22, 2002, Nannes met with the chairman of Stolt-Nielsen's tank- er division, Samuel Cooperman. Cooper- man informed Nannes that O'Brien "raisledl some antitrust concerns" in early 2002, and that in response Stolt-Nielsen revised its antitrust compliance policy and dis

ated consideration of Stolt— Nielsen's and Wingfield's requests for preliminary injunctions with the trial on the merits, and heard testimony from Nannes and James Griffin, a Deputy As- sistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice. In January 2005, the District Cour