Advertisement

April 19, 2014

Assistant Attorney General Addresses Antitrust Remedies in First Formal Remarks

On September 25, 2013, Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer gave his first formal remarks since becoming head of the Antitrust Division at the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) in January. Speaking at Georgetown Law’s Seventh Annual Global Antitrust Enforcement Symposium, Baer’s address was entitled “Remedies Matter: The Importance of Achieving Effective Antitrust Outcomes.”

Baer emphasized that achieving a remedy that preserves or restores competition is more important than the government winning a particular lawsuit.  He then addressed remedies in four contexts: merger remedies, civil non-merger remedies, civil disgorgement and criminal remedies.

Regarding mergers, Baer said that the DOJ “should only consider remedies that effectively resolve the competitive concerns and protect the competitive process.”  He indicated that some deals are nearly unfixable and noting that litigation is not DOJ’s preferred option, Baer warned that reaching a consent decree takes time and cautioned parties against waiting until late in an investigation to engage the DOJ in negotiations.  The proposed acquisition of Grupo Modelo by Anheuser-Busch InBev initially included a component addressing antitrust concerns, but the DOJ wanted more.  Baer used the consent decree in that matter to highlight important provisions in “an effective merger remedy:” structural relief, a fully-vetted up-front buyer, a monitoring trustee and a conveyance of intellectual property and know-how.

For civil non-merger remedies, Baer pointed to the e-books litigation involving Apple and five of the six largest publishers in the United States.  In prosecuting Apple for its role in the civil price-fixing conspiracy, DOJ was seeking a remedy “that would stamp out any lingering effects of the conspiracy,” prevent similar conduct in the future, and ensure Apple’s compliance, with “success … measured not by [DOJ’s] ability to prove the violation, but rather by the effectiveness of the remedies … obtained.”  Baer believes the final judgment accomplishes this through antitrust compliance requirements, including an external compliance monitor.

Baer said that civil disgorgement is appropriate where an offending party would have otherwise “retained the monetary benefits of its anticompetitive conduct.”  He also indicated that it would be a remedy considered in both merger and conduct cases.  Pointing to the “broader legal landscape” and what some observers see as hurdles in private antitrust cases, Baer said that the DOJ would take into account the likelihood of success in private actions when it fashions its public remedies.

For criminal remedies, Baer discussed DOJ’s prosecution of AU Optronics Corporation, its U.S. subsidiary and two top executives for a criminal price-fixing conspiracy.  The remedy included a $500 million fine, probation and an independent monitor to oversee an antitrust compliance program.

Baer appears open to developing creative remedies to achieve outcomes the agency finds most effective in “remedy[ing] anticompetitive conduct and guard[ing] against any recurrence.”  Throughout the speech he emphasized the use of external monitors (the costs of which are borne by the offending parties) and difficult remedies to “fix” past offenses, including disgorgement and unwinding consummated mergers.

© 2014 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Cerissa Cafasso, McDermott Will Emery Law Firm, Antitrust Attorney
Associate

Cerissa Cafasso is an associate in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Washington, D.C., office.  She focuses her practice on antitrust and competition.

202-756-8277

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.