By: Robert Connolly (Cartel Capers)
A somewhat obscure case was decided in early March by the Supreme Court, with implications that could, the author imagines, lead to substantial changes in Antitrust enforcement. In considering the circumstances of Bittner v. U.S., 598 U.S. __(2023), Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion in a 5-4 decision regarding their interpretation of the Banking Secrecy act, and what constitutes a violation of it. Hingeing on the decision is far more than a $2 million fine for Bittner – The case caught this commentator’s eye because of Justice Jackson’s reasoning in favor of the defendant based on the rule of lenity.
The Rule of Lenity
Justice Brown joined Gorsuch’s ruling interpreting the Bank Secrecy Act in favor of the defendant, relying in part on the rule of lenity, which states: “the law is settled that penal statutes are to be construed strictly,”’ and an individual ‘“is not to be subjected to a penalty unless the words of the statute plainly impose it.”’ Bittner, slip opinion at 14, citing, Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 91 (1959). As the text contained certain ambiguity regarding Bittner’s liability for unreported accounts, a reading of this rule would justify taking the more lenient definition in this controversy.
There have been many challenges to the use of the per se rule in criminal antitrust cases which to date have been beaten back by ample precedent in every circuit upholding the per se rule. But, if eventually the Supreme Court takes a per se rule challenge, could the rule of lenity help cement a majority to overturn the per se rule..?
The Competitiveness Compass: Recalibrating the True North for Merger Control?
By: Bernd Meyring, Gerwin van Gerven, Neil Hoolihan & Lodewick Prompers (Linklaters)
In this article, authors Bernd Meyring, Gerwin van Gerwen, Neil Hoolihan & Lodewick Prompers (Linklaters) discuss the European Commission’s renewed focus on competitiveness as the core theme of the second von der Leyen Commission. The European Commission has just published its Competitiveness Compass, outlining the anticipated policy, legislative, and enforcement changes it aims to implement.
Following the Draghi Report’s wake-up call, the Competitiveness Compass emphasizes the need for simplification and better coordination across all policies. It details how the European Commission plans to transform these “transformational imperatives” into enhanced competitiveness for the EU. Alongside these calls for simplification and better policy coordination, the Compass outlines two key changes in competition enforcement. One concerns the development of a new framework for State Aid, which is discussed in a separate article. The focus here is on the anticipated revisions to merger control guidelines. Both measures fall within the European Commission’s authority and do not require approval from the Council or Parliament. While this approach closely resembles executive orders, the final drafts will still need to be prepared and formally adopted by the College of Commissioners.
The Competitiveness Compass reinforces the mission letter addressed to Teresa Ribera, the Commissioner responsible for competition. By 2026, the European Commission intends to revamp merger control guidelines to better reflect the evolving dynamics of markets and technological innovation. The goal is to introduce a “fresh approach” that aligns competition policy with common strategic objectives and enables European companies to scale up effectively in global markets. The European Commission aims to focus on innovation, resilience, and investment intensity, particularly in strategic sectors. The Draghi Report emphasized the importance of greater consolidation in the defence and telecommunications industries.
The current EU Merger Regulation does not provide room for sector-specific merger control. However, innovation benefits and synergies should be given greater prominence. The European Commission has previously intervened in numerous mergers where it identified harm to innovation. Moving forward, there may be increased openness to innovation remedies. These tools could be particularly significant in certain industries, though introducing sector-specific merger tests would require more than just revised guidelines…
Featured News
OpenAI Board Denies Receiving Formal Bid from Elon Musk
Feb 12, 2025 by
CPI
Thomas Kauper, Former DOJ Antitrust Leader, Dies at 89
Feb 12, 2025 by
CPI
BlackRock’s Acquisition of Preqin Secures UK Regulatory Approval
Feb 12, 2025 by
CPI
NFL Sued Over Bluesky Ban by Fans Citing Antitrust Violations
Feb 12, 2025 by
CPI
Warburg Pincus Strikes $1 Billion Deal to Acquire Vermont Information Processing
Feb 12, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – International Criminal Enforcement
Jan 23, 2025 by
CPI
The Antitrust Division’s Recent Work to Combat International Cartels
Jan 23, 2025 by
Emma Burnham & Benjamin Christenson
Information Sharing: The New Frontier of U.S. Antitrust Enforcement
Jan 23, 2025 by
Brian P. Quinn, Casey Kovarik & Michael Tubach
The Key Role of Guidelines on Exchanges of Information Among Competitors and the Divergent Transatlantic Paths
Jan 23, 2025 by
Rosa Abrantes-Metz & Albert Metz
Leniency, Whistleblowers, and Compliance
Jan 23, 2025 by
Richard Powers, Tara O’Malley & Cory Gordon