Cartels

This Note outlines the key issues related to creating and maintaining an antitrust compliance program.

This Note outlines the course of antitrust investigations conducted by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission before they start enforcement proceedings.

These hypothetical questions and answers may be used to train employees and executives as part of an antitrust compliance program. This Standard Document has integrated notes that explain the answers to each hypothetical question. The drafting notes also distinguish situations where the facts given may violate a company's antitrust compliance policy even though they may not directly violate the antitrust law. This Standard Document provides hypotheticals that concern US antitrust law only and, in particular, dealings with competitors under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

A Checklist of the general steps a company should take before, during and after a raid by US government authorities in connection with an antitrust investigation.

This tool enables subscribers to search the Country Q&A in the PLC Cartel leniency multi-jurisdictional guide by question and jurisdiction. Simply select the questions and the jurisdictions that you are interested in and click the "submit" button. Please note that the law stated dates for each jurisdiction covered may not be the same. To check the law stated dates for each jurisdiction, please visit the individual article. Please also note this project is currently being updated so the Q&A tool will not include all available jurisdictions in this subject area.

Recent trends towards increased co-operation and exchange of information between regulators and prosecutors mean that multinational companies frequently have to deal with the same regulatory issues across many jurisdictions. This article sets out the key issues that a company must consider when facing a multi-jurisdictional regulatory investigation.  

Anti-cartel enforcement has been the subject of increased focus in recent years. This has led to the development of stricter systems and tougher penalties. This chapter examines aspects of the criminal provisions relating to cartel conduct in Canada, the US, the UK and Australia, including criminal penalties, types of cartel conduct, possible defences, corporate exposure to criminal prosecution and methods of reducing this exposure.

This chapter considers recent developments in cartel prosecution in the US and the EU, including attempts to deter cartels, the current status of leniency programmes and developments in the area of private anti-trust litigation.

Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer recently announced changes to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) position on employee carve outs in corporate plea agreements.

On 7 December 2010, as a condition of its participation in the US Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Corporate Leniency Programme, Bank of America agreed to pay US$137.3 million in restitution to federal and state agencies for its employees' participation in a conspiracy to rig bids in the municipal derivatives market.

On 9 June 2010, US President Obama signed into law H.R. 5330 (Pub. L. No. 111-190), which extends the civil leniency provisions of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 (ACPERA) for ten years.  Under ACPERA, successful amnesty applicants under the Department of Justice Antitrust Division's corporate leniency program may limit their potential civil damages in private antitrust actions.  By providing "satisfactory co-operation" to plaintiffs, leniency applicants are able to avoid treble damages and joint and several liability in civil suits.

On 28 May 2010, the US District Court for the Northern District of California found that plaintiffs in the flat panel antitrust litigation may serve two Taiwanese defendants through their US counsel pursuant to US Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) (Rule 4(f)(3)).  The court determined that plaintiffs need not first attempt to personally serve the defendants through the letter rogatory process if there is alternative, speedier relief available that comports with due process.

On 29 March 2010, Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky, who is overseeing the civil litigation in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York in which various airlines are alleged to have fixed the prices of air cargo, ordered defendant Societe Air France (Air France) to produce certain documents to the plaintiffs.  Air France was withholding the documents pursuant to France's "blocking statute", which prohibits parties from producing documents or information for use in foreign litigation other than pursuant to certain treaties, such as the Hague Convention.

On 21 December 2009, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted comments to the Department of Transportation (DOT) opposing any broad grant of antitrust immunity for an expanded airline alliance by current members of the Oneworld Alliance.  The DOJ concluded that the proposed agreements would result in competitive harm on six transatlantic routes that serve 2.5 million passengers annually, potentially increasing fares up to 15% for some passengers.

On 9 April 2009, as a result of an ongoing investigation into the air transportation industry, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Cargolux Airlines International S.A. (Cargolux), Nippon Cargo Airlines Co. Ltd (NCA), and Asiana Airlines Inc. (Asiana) each agreed to plead guilty to conspiring to fix prices in the air cargo industry in violation of the Sherman Act and to pay a total of US$214 million in criminal fines. The DOJ also charged that Asiana fixed the prices of passenger fares for flights from the United States to Korea.

On 12 November 2008, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that three leading electronics manufacturers have agreed to plead guilty and pay a total of US$585 million in criminal fines for conspiring to fix prices in the sale of liquid crystal display panels. The firms include LG Display Co. Ltd. (LG), Sharp Corp. (Sharp), and Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd. (Chunghwa). Of the US$585 million in total criminal fines, LG will pay US$400 million, which is the second-highest criminal fine ever imposed by the DOJ's Antitrust Division. The DOJ filed its charges and the proposed settlement in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. In addition, the three companies have agreed to co-operate with the DOJ's ongoing investigation in the industry.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced that Japan Airlines International Co. (Japan Airlines) has agreed to plead guilty and pay a US$110 million criminal fine in connection with an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of international air cargo shipments.

A Q&A guide to cartel leniency law in Argentina. The Q&A gives a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities. In particular, it covers the conditions to be satisfied, the method of making an application, availability of immunity from civil fines to individuals, the scope of leniency, circumstances when leniency may be withdrawn, leniency plus, confidentiality and disclosure, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Cartel leniency Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As, which provide a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to cartel leniency law in Austria. The Q&A gives a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities. In particular, it covers the conditions to be satisfied, the method of making an application, availability of immunity from civil fines to individuals, the scope of leniency, circumstances when leniency may be withdrawn, leniency plus, confidentiality and disclosure, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Cartel leniency Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As, which provide a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.