April 25, 2014

Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division Announces Two Key Changes to its “Carve Out” Policy for Corporate Plea Agreements

On April 12, 2013, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division announced two key changes to its “carve out” policy for individuals employed by corporations entering criminal antitrust plea agreements.  These changes were announced in a written statement from Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer (available here), and come one day after the Antitrust Division released the 2013 edition of its annual newsletter (available here).     

First, the Antitrust Division will no longer publicly release the names of individual employees who have been “carved out” of the non-prosecution protection in a company’s plea agreement.  Typically, corporate plea agreements contain a non-prosecution provision, which protects the company’s employees from criminal liability related to the antitrust activity at issue.  The Antitrust Division will exclude or “carve out” certain employees from this protective provision, on the belief that these individuals may be criminally culpable and could be targeted in the future for their particular involvement.  Previously, the names of employees being carved out from a company’s plea agreement protections were listed in the publicly available version of the document.  This oft criticized practice was contrary to the stated position of every other unit within the Department of Justice, all of which have adopted policies against the public naming of uncharged third parties.  Following Friday’s announcement, the names of carved out individuals will only be listed in an appendix to the plea agreement, and that appendix will be filed with the court under seal.  This logical change creates a uniform policy within the Department of Justice, and will prevent carved out employees from experiencing serious reputational harm until and unless the government has sufficient evidence to charge them.

Second, the Antitrust Division will only carve out employees who they have reason to believe were involved in criminal wrongdoing or who are potential targets of the investigation.  Previously, the division would also carve out non-prosecution protection for employees who refused to cooperate with the investigation or employees with potentially relevant information who could not be located.  While the Antitrust Division will “continue to demand the full cooperation of anyone who seeks to benefit from the non-prosecution protection of a corporate plea agreement,” they “will no longer carve out employees for reasons unrelated to culpability.”  Employees often refuse to cooperate or cannot easily be located for numerous reasons, many of which have nothing to do with covering up culpable behavior.  This policy change will remove the cloud of doubt and negative stigma that presently plagues these employees, as the Division will now only carve out those it believes are culpable or those still under investigation.  Going forward, there will be no uncertainty about the meaning of being carved out of the plea agreement – any employee in that unenviable position should know that they are being targeted for prosecution or further investigation.

Last week, the Antitrust Division announced that the 2012 fiscal year provided record high numbers for criminal fines ($1.14 billion), as well as the percentage of individual defendants sentenced to prison time (78%).  The division also announced that the average prison sentence over the last three years has risen to 25 months, up significantly from the 1990s average of 8 months and the 2000s average of 20 months.  Both changes to the division’s carve out practice are positive news for corporate employees, especially in the present era of heightened criminal antitrust enforcement.

©2014 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved

About the Author

Ronald A. Sarachan, White Collar Criminal Attorney with Drinker Biddle law firm

Ronald A. Sarachan is a partner in the firm's Commercial Litigation Practice Group and co-chair of the White Collar/Internal Investigations Team.  He focuses his practice on white collar litigation, regulatory enforcement and complex civil litigation. 

In criminal litigation, Ronald has successfully defended corporate clients ranging from Fortune 500 multinational corporations to closely-held companies, as well as individual owners, directors, managers, and other employees.  At the investigative stage, he has successfully convinced the government not to bring...


About the Author

Nicholas S. Feltham, Commercial Litigation Attorney with Drinker Biddle law firm

Nicholas S. Feltham is an associate in the firm's Commercial Litigation Practice Group, and is a member of the firm’s E-Discovery Team. 

Nicholas received his J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and earned his A.B. in government with a minor in public policy from Dartmouth College. While in law school Nicholas served as the managing editor of the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law & Social Change. He also served as a student co-director of the University of Pennsylvania Criminal Law Research Group, and co-authored an empirical...


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 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  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.