Acme Markets Inc Case Study

MEMORANDUM In 1975, Acme Markets, Inc., a large national food chain and its CEO, John R. Park, were convicted of keeping food sold in interstate commerce in a rodent-infested company’s warehouse, in violation of federal regulations . According to the responsible corporate officer doctrine, the court found Park severely liable for the unsanitary circumstances of this corporation, as this offense involves protecting the public health and welfare of patent dangers. Park was charged guilty of violating 301(k) of the Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act (FDCA), which protect consumers against adulterated and misbranded foods and drugs.

Park pleaded guilty admitting that he was “responsible for the entire operation of the company” and that as one of

Further, under the RCO the government only needs to prove the following three arguments: (1) held a position of authority (2) could have prevented the violation, (3) did not intent to prevent the criminal act . Even if the CEO of a company has not intended to commit a criminal act or to violate a law, but the violation was committed under his supervision, the government can recognize him guilty due to an act of negligence and a lack discipline with his subordinates. The RCO doctrine was originated in a similar case between, United States vs. Dotterweich. Dotterweich was the president of a pharmaceutical corporation, Dotterweich and the corporation were charged for purchasing and repackaging drugs that the original manufacturer had misbranded and adulterated, violating the FDCA. Dotterweich was found guilty even when he had not knowledge, nor was directly involved in the criminal activity that was being held at his organization. Dotterweich was just sentenced based on the fact that he only “shared responsibility in the business process in his position has a responsible relation to a public danger” according to the court. Thirty years later, the RCO doctrine was reaffirmed with the United States Vs. Park case, where Park surrogate operating activities to “responsible subordinates”, but had retained broad managerial controls