Dispute Between Apple Inc. (AAPL) and Federal Court Lawyer Worsens

Apple Santa Monica Store

A dispute between Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) and the lawyer appointed by the federal court to examine the e-book pricing deepens further, says a report from the Wall Street Journal. According to Michael Bromwich, who is the lawyer in this case said that Apple’s characterization of his team’s activities as a “roving investigation” in fact “bear no relation whatsoever to the activities we have attempted to conduct.”

Apple even requested for removal of Bromwich

Bromwich, in his 11 page document along with the hundreds pages of email, accused Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) of obstructing the interviews between him and the senior executives more than one time Also, the lawyer alleged that the company failed to deliver the relevant documents.

The feud between Apple and Bromwich dates back to several months. In November, the iPhone maker alleged that Mr. Bromwich, a partner at Goodwin Procter LLP and a former inspector general at the Justice Department has performed the actions not falling in the purview of his rights. Apple claimed that the lawyer is operating in an unfettered and inappropriate manner along with overcharging the company citing a $138,432.40 for his first two weeks of work.

In December, Apple requested Manhattan U.S. District Judge Cote to end the supervision of Mr. Bromwich pending the company’s appeal of Judge Cote’s antitrust judgment against the company. In July, Cote accused Apple of conspiring with five major U.S. publishers to manipulate the price of e-books, whereas Apple is looking forward to appeal against the verdict.

The justice department appointed Bromwich to examine and look into the matter, and said that withdrawing Bromwich from the case would go against the public interest, in preventing further breach of antitrust by Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL).

Apple case worst experience

Bromwich, citing his previous assignments and cases of three companies, said he was constantly in touch with the top level management on a regular basis and never had to make a request for a meeting or interview in a monitoring assignment. The meetings were never rejected or deferred, said Bromwich

“This is far less access than I have ever received during a comparable period of time in the three other monitorships I have conducted,” Mr. Bromwich said.

In his emails, Bromwich indicated that his relationship with Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) is not very smooth, and the divide between both the parties became more visible after Bromwich send his rates and contours of is oversight to the Apple’s director of competition law, Kyle Andeer.