May 21, 2012

Bill Introduced To Secure Reduced Civil Liability For Amnesty Applicants

Three U.S. senators have introduced a bill that would make permanent provisions of the Antitrust Criminal Penalties Enforcement and Reform Act of 2004 (ACPERA) granting reduced civil liability to companies who successfully apply for criminal amnesty under the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust leniency program and subsequently provide "satisfactory cooperation" to civil plaintiffs.
 

Under ACPERA, a cooperating amnesty applicant may be held liable in a civil action only for the actual damages caused by its own conduct, thus avoiding the joint and several liability and treble damages typically available in antitrust conspiracy cases. This reduced civil liability was intended to provide an additional incentive for whistleblowers to apply to DOJ's leniency program.

The current bill is co-sponsored by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT). In introducing the bill, Senator Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) hailed ACPERA's role in promoting the ongoing success of DOJ's leniency policy. "For more than 15 years, this policy has allowed the division to uncover cartels affecting billions of dollars worth of commerce here in the United States, which has led to prosecutions resulting in record fines and jail sentences," said Kohl. "The changes we made to this program six years ago [in enacting ACPERA] have proven successful and it's time we give the Justice Department a permanent fix so it can continue the good work it has done detecting and prosecuting price fixing cartels."

Despite these glowing statements, however, the bill would continue Congress's cautious approach in exploring possible improvements to ACPERA. The law's civil liability provisions were originally slated to sunset in June 2009, giving Congress an opportunity to assess whether the provisions were having the desired effects in facilitating criminal antitrust investigations, or whether refinement of the statutory scheme was necessary. Congress enacted a one-year extension of the provisions to June 2010, noting the paucity of case law interpreting or applying the statute, and concluding that still more time was needed to evaluate the law. The current bill would make ACPERA's existing civil liability provisions permanent, but would require the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study of the effectiveness of the law and present its conclusions to the Senate and House judiciary committees within one year after the bill takes effect. Specifically, the GAO's study would be required to address ACPERA's "effectiveness…both in criminal investigation and enforcement by the Department of Justice and in private civil actions…[and] shall consider, inter alia, the effectiveness of incentives for cooperation, and the timeliness of that cooperation, in private civil actions."

"When we receive the study, we will review it and act accordingly, changing the law if necessary," said Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), a sponsor of the bill.

Thus, while it appears that a reduced civil liability scheme is set to become a permanent fact of life for amnesty applicants, the specifics of that scheme are hardly set in stone.

Copyright © 2012, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

About the Author

Associate

Dylan Ballard is an associate in the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Practice Group in the firm's San Francisco office.

(415) 774-2914

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. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or 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.