Congress Misses Opportunity to Bolster Flagging Cartel Enforcement through Whistleblowers
By: Michael W. Scarborough and Kevin Costello (Sheppard Mullin)
Congress recently took two steps towards incentivizing private participation in federal cartel enforcement: the permanent adoption of ACPERA, and enactment of the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act. While now companies may have permanent incentives to self-report cartel activity, and whistleblowing employees may be better protected from employer retaliation, no surge in individual cartel reporting should be expected absent direct whistleblower financial incentives, such as found in other federal enforcement regimes.
ACPERA Is Now Permanent
Signed into law in October 2020, the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Permanent Extension Act made permanent the provisions in ACPERA originally enacted in 2004 providing greater incentives for corporations to self-report and cooperate pursuant to the Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s Corporate Leniency Policy. ACPERA buttresses the Division’s policy of giving amnesty from criminal prosecution to the first firm or individual to confess participation in a criminal antitrust conspiracy by limiting subsequent civil liability for the same conduct. The rationale is that even if a co-conspirator qualifies for amnesty from criminal prosecution, the specter of broad civil liability might dissuade an otherwise cooperative cartel member from confessing, thereby blunting the amnesty program’s incentives.
Under ACPERA, a defendant that fulfills the reporting and cooperation requirements under the DOJ’s amnesty program can also limit its liability in subsequent civil lawsuits to the “actual damages” caused by the defendant’s illegal conduct. However, defendants are only entitled to ACPERA protection if they provide “timely” and “satisfactory cooperation” to civil plaintiffs. As this blog previously observed, these terms are ambiguous, and only at the end of litigation will the judge determine whether a civil defendant has satisfactorily performed its role and earned the sought protection under ACPERA. This lack of clarity calls into question just how effective ACPERA’s protections are in getting co-conspirators to come forward…
Featured News
Federal Competition Office to Scrutinize High Electricity Prices in Germany
Jan 2, 2025 by
CPI
Mexican Lawmakers Advance Controversial Plan to Dissolve Independent Oversight Bodies
Jan 2, 2025 by
CPI
Motorola Accuses UK of Antitrust Breach Over Terminated Emergency Services Contract
Jan 2, 2025 by
CPI
Amazon Must Face Antitrust Case Over Alleged Monopoly Practices
Jan 2, 2025 by
CPI
US Appeals Court Blocks FCC’s Move to Reinstate Net Neutrality Rules
Jan 2, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand