US judge rejects Boeing plea deal in 737 Max Criminal Case

0
50

Boeing was accused of misleading the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) about the MCAS system to expedite regulatory approval and reduce pilot training requirements for the 737 Max 8, aiming to fast-track the aircraft’s entry into the market.

Details of the Rejected Plea Deal

The rejected agreement, finalized in July, would have required Boeing to plead guilty to conspiracy to defraud regulators. It followed a $2.5 billion deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) reached in January 2021, which included $243.6 million in fines, $1.77 billion in compensation to airlines, and $500 million for victim families.

The new plea deal proposed an additional $243.6 million criminal fine and a $455 million investment in Boeing’s compliance and safety programs.

Victims’ Families Push Back

Victims’ families argued that the plea agreement fell short in holding Boeing accountable, citing insufficient penalties, nontransparent compliance monitoring, and inadequate restitution.

Paul G. Cassell, representing the families, said the agreement’s flaws highlight the need for the court’s involvement to ensure justice for the victims.

Legal Representation

  • Federal Government: Sean P. Tonolli of the DOJ’s Fraud Section, Chad E. Meacham of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas.
  • Boeing: Mark Filip of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Benjamin L. Hatch of McGuireWoods LLP, Michael P. Heiskell of Johnson Vaughn & Heiskell.
  • Victims’ Families: Paul G. Cassell of the Utah Appellate Project, Warren T. Burns of Burns Charest LLP, Tracy A. Brammeier of Clifford Law Offices PC, Erin R. Applebaum of Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, Pablo Rojas of Podhurst Orseck PA.

What’s Next?

The DOJ and Boeing must revisit negotiations to address the court’s concerns. Meanwhile, victims’ families are expected to continue advocating for stronger accountability measures.