Press release, U.S. Dep`t of Justice, Chipotle Mexican Grill agrees to pay a $25 million fine and enter into a late prosecution agreement to resolve foodborne outbreak charges (April 21, 2020), www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chipotle-mexican-grill-agrees-pay-25-million-fine-and-enter-deferred-prosecution-agreement (`Chipotle Press Release`). As part of the resolution, the merger agreed to pay a total of $145 million. The payment includes (1) a fine of 25,398,300 USD, (2) a collection allowance of 959,700 USD and (3) a civil sum of 118,642,000 USD.  The practical merger agreement states that the company was not required to maintain an independent compliance monitor because of its “beleant cooperation,” its recovery efforts, the oversight organization appointment agreement, the implementation of important compliance obligations, and the self-reporting agreement with the U.S. Public Prosecutor`s Office.  Nevertheless, the “monitoring organization” described in the agreement is very similar to a compliance monitor, with the DOJ having the right to veto the selection of the monitoring organization; The organization that is responsible for “appropriately ensuring that the systems, controls and compliance processes of merger practice are put in place and maintained, which are reasonably designed, implemented and operated to ensure compliance with the data protection authority; and the monitoring organization that regularly reports to Practice Fusion`s Board of Directors and the DOJ.  The concession requested by the government under an appeal agreement, whether it is a “pricing agreement,” a “criminal agreement” or a “mixed agreement,” should be weighed down by the competent prosecutor in light of the likely advantages and disadvantages of the proposed plea in the specific case. Particular attention must be paid to considering the possibility of entering into an appeal agreement under which the defendant may establish a ground for Nolo`s application. As was discussed in the years JM 9-27.500 and JM 9-16.000, there are serious objections to these grounds and they should be rejected unless the competent Assistant Attorney General concludes that the circumstances are so unusual that the assumption of such a plea would be in the public interest.