The company breached the $2.5 billion settlement “by failing to design, implement, and enforce a compliance and ethics program to prevent and detect violations of the US fraud laws throughout its operations,” according to the
Boeing, whose shares were down more than 1% shortly after trading began on Wednesday, now has four weeks to respond with its analysis and comments, which will be taken into consideration with regard to any next steps. The Justice Department said it’s still determining how to proceed, including whether and how to punish the company.
The decision escalates the legal risks facing the planemaker in the wake of a near-catastrophe in early January, when a fuselage panel blew off an
“We believe that we have honored the terms of that agreement, and look forward to the opportunity to respond to the Department on this issue,” Boeing said in a statement after the Justice Department filing.
Under the terms of the accord, the company adopted a compliance program designed to prevent it from deceiving regulators, including the
Public Outrage
Boeing shares were down 1.1% to $178.85 at 9:38 a.m. Wednesday in New York. The shares fell less than 1% following the department’s decision in after-hours trading Tuesday. The stock has tumbled about 31% so far this year, the second-worst performance on the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Boeing also faces another ultimatum, that one from the FAA, to devise a plan to fix what the regulator called “systemic” quality-control issues. Those 90 days, issued in late February, are set to run out at the end of this month.
Read More:
US prosecutors in Seattle have already sent subpoenas seeking documents and communications from Boeing and supplier
The 2021 agreement not to prosecute Boeing over the two 737 Max jetliner crashes sparked intense criticism, including from victims’ families. Members of the victims families were outraged that prosecutors had not reached out to them before cutting the deal with Boeing, which agreed to pay a criminal fine of $243 million, but was allowed to dodge a fraud charge for withholding important information about the 737 Max from the FAA.
Presiding Judge
In 2022, the families were able to convince the presiding judge in the case that the Justice Department had improperly excluded them, in violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Even so, the judge declined to alter the terms of the Boeing agreement.
Scrutiny of Boeing has ramped up in the months since the Alaska Airlines accident, the February FAA report, and amid a wave of new whistleblower allegations pertaining to the planemaker’s manufacturing processes. Congressional panels, including the Senate Commerce Committee, have already held hearings on some of these issues with plans to have both the FAA and Boeing executives testify in the near future.
Lawyers for families of crash victims hailed the Justice Department’s findings.
“This is a positive first step, and for the families, a long time coming,” said
‘Egregious’ Acts
Erin Applebaum, a partner at
The Justice Department said it plans to confer with the families and their lawyers on May 31 and inform the court of its decision for any punishment against Boeing no later than July 7.
Boeing took steps to improve safety following the two 737 Max crashes in 2018 and 2019, including creating a chief aerospace safety officer and changing the management structure so its engineers reported to chief engineer
The yearlong study found that many Boeing employees didn’t know how to flag potential safety issues and didn’t trust the “Speak Up” program the company put in place to flag wrongdoing. The planemaker was also faulted for ineffective procedures and training.
(Updates with share price Wednesday morning.)
--With assistance from
To contact the reporters on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Peter Blumberg, Peter Jeffrey
© 2024 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.